Michael Baxter

@darrengrimes Track the oil price over say 50 years and compare with recessions over the same period.. The correlation is very strong. This is one of many reasons why we need to be less reliant on oil and create a more resilient energy supply chain by using renewabless and batteries.

It’s common sense.

@AllisonPearson @Ed_Miliband Rudimentary research reveals why this just isn’t true. Why are energy costs lower in regions that are also embracing net zero? How is China able able to reduce C02 emissions whilst still growing? If net zero is the cause of high energy costs why do they rise when oil goes up?

Even before war, UK had highest electricity prices in the world. Because of the insane pursuit of net zero and failure to exploit our own oil/gas. Instead, we pay Norway £40 billion for oil and gas extracted from North Sea fields next to ours. Never forgive @Ed_Miliband

@piersmorgan And if it has to be a human who played a key role in WW2 what about Alan Turing?

Sorry? We’re going to replace our greatest ever Briton, the man who saved us from the Nazis, with a bloody hedgehog? This is ridiculous.

@Jenny_1884 They’re like everyone else? Just in ordinary life there are those of bad character. Most (or maybe just many) enter politics for honourable reasons. But their critics often lack the self awareness or have too much hubris to understand they themselves suffer from similar faults

@Jenny_1884 MPs are typically well above average intelligence and the few I have known have been very intelligent indeed. They have often had a successful career before entering politics. I think their wealth is partially a function of their intelligence, education and work ethic.

How come an average MPs salary is under £100K a year & yet the majority are multi-millionaires. It doesn’t add up. Where’s their money coming from.

@Matt_Pinner Of course it isn’t a hoax, and of course it is caused by humans. Those who say otherwise are either following vested interests or just wishful thinkers. In fact, given science deals with uncertainty and probability all the time, the science of climate change is remarkably solid.

So I’m just gonna ask straight up You really believe climate change is a hoax?

@munich15040 @MatthewWielicki Everyone who isn’t very good at critical thinking knows this.

@MatthewWielicki Everyone knows (except politicians and ideologues paid to promote it) that wind and solar are utterly useless unless you have sun and wind 365/24/7 in all parts of the world.

Everyone keeps talking about an “energy transition.” The data say otherwise. Look at global fossil fuel consumption. Coal. Oil. Natural gas. All of them are still rising. Not flattening. Not declining. Rising. Wind and solar aren’t replacing fossil fuels. They’re being added on top of them. That’s not a transition. That’s energy expansion. The world isn’t choosing between fossil fuels and renewables. It’s choosing more energy of every kind because billions of people still want electricity, transportation, heating, cooling, and modern living standards. This chart shows the reality policymakers don’t want to admit: The global economy runs on energy… and demand keeps growing. The “transition” narrative only works if fossil fuel use is falling. It isn’t. Not globally. Not even close. The world is building wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas, and oil all at the same time. Because prosperity requires energy… and energy demand doesn’t care about political narratives.

@MatthewWielicki The equation you be considering is whether the percentage increase in energy generated by renewables is greater than, less than or roughly the same as the percentage increase in energy generated by fossil fuels.

@DVanLangenhove I don’t think she said windmills. I don’t think they make them anymore, I wonder what you it was she said you misheard.

Don’t worry. Von der Leyen says we are going to fix this with more taxes, regulations and windmills.

@iamyesyouareno Hey. I’m one of them. I mean white, straight, male. It never occurred to me there was anything wrong with that. Who told you it was a problem?

Rupert Lowe addresses young White men: “There is nothing wrong with being White, there is nothing wrong with being a man, there is nothing wrong with being straight.” NO MORE WHITE GUILT.

@robprogressive UK public debt to GDP is less than in the US, Japan, France, Italy and Canada — and indeed significantly less. In fact the only G7 country with a lower ratio is Germany, so why wouid you say the U.K. is going bankrupt without mentioning the 5 G7 countries with higher debt/GDP?

The U.K is on the edge of bankruptcy. National debt is almost £3 trillion & growing at £150 billion+ a year 

100% of GDP: the entire yearly economy in debt  The UK owes more than it earns. That means it’s insolvent  The debt fuels inflation & taxes. It pushes your prices up and your savings down  While you’re getting poorer the U.K. will raise taxes further & borrow MORE money  No one running the U.K has ever run a business & they are ruining our economy. Why

@wideawake_media The thing is they aren’t wrong, and when people like you say things like that I think of my grandchildren and think people like you with your nonsensical views pose a threat to their future.

How many times do climate alarmists have to be wrong before they finally admit there is no "climate crisis"? 🤔

@ChrisMartzWX Bring back the 120 character limit, Twitter was so much better when it wasn’t populated with such drivel.

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. The “consensus of scientists” is not organic. Rather, it was manufactured through questionable methods in two studies, both 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. 🌭 But, what about the >99% consensus? 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. 𝐁𝐮𝐭, 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞. . . Climate activists will 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 grounds that those studies did not focus on identifying or discussing causal links. But, that's just hand-waving. 👋 The fact is that not all of the studies endorsing AGW investigated the physical driver(s) of temperature change since 1850. 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” policies—almost always include the disclaimer that mankind's carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming. This is done so that the paper satisfies 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. Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the “consensus of scientists.” So, when climate activists claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that's not accurately stating what these studies purport. 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐯𝐬. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the “consensus of scientists.” So, when climate activists claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that's not at all an accurate framing of these papers' findings. The papers actually attempted to quantify the “scientific consensus” on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is different from a “consensus of scientists,” which is essentially nothing more than an expert opinion poll. What's more, neither of these reviews addressed the million-dollar question, which is whether or not global warming has been [or will be] dangerous. Just because our GHG emissions 𝑚𝑎𝑦 have caused some [or even most of the warming] since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, that tells us nothing about the level of danger posed by it short- and long-term. So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous? Thankfully, we have some insight into that. 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐊 While a “consensus of scientists” (i.e., expert opinion poll) is less robust than a “scientific consensus” (i.e., synthesis of published literature), one advantage that polling scientists for their opinion has over the latter is that it gives them anonymity to express their views on the issue without having to fear losing their job or having their paper(s) rejected by biased journal editors (the gatekeepers). Prestigious, lauded scientific organizations such as the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and the Royal Society have manufactured a “consensus of scientists” by taking a very strong stance on the climate issue without first consulting their members for their views. Both the AGU and AMS recently did just that following the Trump administration's decision to repeal the Obama-era 2009 Endangerment Finding that allowed the EPA to regulate tailpipe emissions. From the AGU, 🗨️“𝐴𝐺𝑈 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙-𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒’𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙, 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑙𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑-𝑤𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦. 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙, 𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑦.” 🔗fromtheprow.agu.org/agu-denounces-… And, from the AMS, 🗨️“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦 (𝐴𝑀𝑆) 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑃𝐴’𝑠 2009 𝐸𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙-𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.” The letter continues, asserting without presenting a single shred of evidence, that, 🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙-𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔.” 🔗ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/… Both statements were written without consultation of each organization's professional members. Contrary to the AMS' partisan take, we actually have good insight into what their members think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think warming is dangerous. In January 2016, Dr. Ed Maibach and colleagues from George Mason University (GMU) polled all 7,682 (at that time) professional members of the AMS on their views on climate change. A handful of questions were asked with several follow-ups. 🔗gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=… The survey had a 53.3% participation rate and there were 4,092 respondents (p. 1). Here are a sample of the questions asked: 1⃣ 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲, 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (4,091 responses) ✅ Yes: 96% ❌ No: 1% 🤷 Don't know: 3% ✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 1] 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (3,854 responses) 🟢 Extremely sure: 58% 🔵 Very sure: 31% 🟡 Somewhat sure: 10% 🔴 Not sure: 0% ✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “No” to 1] 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (53 responses) 🟢 Extremely sure: 13% 🔵 Very sure: 43% 🟡 Somewhat sure: 38% 🔴 Not sure: 6% 2⃣ 𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱... (4,004 responses) 🔴 Largely / entirely by humans (>81%): 29% 🟤 Mostly by humans (60-80%): 38% 🟡 Roughly equally natural + man-made: 14% 🟢 Mostly by natural events (60-80%): 7% 🔵 Largely / entirely by natural events (>81%): 5% 🤷 Don't know: 6% ❌ Climate has not changed: 1% 6⃣ 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (4,002 responses) ✅ Yes: 74% ❌ No: 11% 🤷 Don't know: 15% ✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 6] 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,546 responses) 🟢 Exclusively beneficial: 0% 🔵 Primarily beneficial: 4% 🟡 Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 36% 🟤 Primarily harmful: 36% 🔴 Exclusively harmful: 2% 🤷 Don't know: 21% 7⃣ 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,963 responses) ✅ Yes: 78% ❌ No: 5% 🤷 Don't know: 17% ✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 7] 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,761 responses) 🟢 Exclusively beneficial: 0% 🔵 Primarily beneficial: 2% 🟡 Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 29% 🟤 Primarily harmful: 47% 🔴 Exclusively harmful: 3% 🤷 Don't know: 19% So, based on this 2016 survey of professional AMS members, of those who responded, • 96% of AMS members agree that climate change is occurring, regardless of the proximate cause. • 67% of AMS members agree that change has primarily been human-caused, but the contribution estimates vary considerably. 67% is far from a consensus given that 33% have a different opinion. • 38% of AMS members agree that the impacts of climate change in their localities have been negative over the last 50 years. However, 40% said that the impacts have been mixed or primarily beneficial, and 21% said that they weren't sure. So, what can we truly conclude about the “consensus of scientists” on climate change? • Is climate change occurring? ✅ • Human activities contribute to global warming in at least 𝑺𝑶𝑴𝑬 capacity? ✅ • Climate change is [or will be] dangerous? ❌ And, this exactly summarizes my position (despite the constant framing by detractors that I'm a “denier”). It also matches fairly closely with the abstracts in Cook et al. (2013) once you categorize the papers' findings correctly and account for nuance. Thus, just because global warming is real and we do play some role in causing it is still not a good enough justification to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix. There must be sufficient proof that this warming poses a great threat to the welfare of the planet and life on it, and that has yet to be provided contrary to the BS-infused letters written by the AGU and AMS last week. So, when climate alarmists [most of whom have no qualifications of their own] claim that I am standing at odds with organizations like the AMS or NASA, quite frankly, I don't care. It is clear from the survey results above that there is a greater disagreement among scientists than you are led to believe by what both the gatekeepers allow to be published in journals and what higher-ups within scientific organizations claim is the universal position among their members. Government and university research scientists also are often told what they can and cannot say publicly about climate change. I know that for a fact because I have family that are federal employees, and I know quite a few skeptics in academia at different colleges / universities that play the game to avoid being fired, but in reality, don't agree with alarmist messaging in the slightest. Last, but not least, consensus isn't science. Science requires one investigator who happens to have verifiable data and evidence.

@s8mb Yeah, but what I like about February is that it is followed by March, and what I like about March is that it is followed by April. And I love April because it is followed by May. And I love May.

Apparently it’s going to rain every day this week. A lot of people find the darkness and weather of England in the winter depressing. Not me, though - it doesn’t bother me at all. I recommend feeling the same way and you’ll be a lot happier!

@chinchat09 @elonmusk These things will probably be cyclical. This problem is not unique to Europe. In fact the only place it is not a problem is Africa and a few Asian counties. Even there fertility rate is falling. But I suspect, once it falls to a certain level, it will start going up.

@elonmusk "If the Europe's birth rate does not approach the replacement rate, population declines and eventual collapse" -Elon Musk

Why are the EU politicians so insistent on Europe committing suicide?

@_MAGA_NEWS_ It’s odd anyone should read much into this speech. It’s old news. Mario Draghi’s report 18 months ago said virtually the same thing. The EU has been implementing his recommendations since. Germany has 1 advantage over every other large economy; low gov debt; now it’s spending

🚨 JUST IN: In a bombshell speech, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz just called the EUROPEAN UNION A COMPLETE FAILURE in front of global elites by stating, "Germany and Europe have wasted incredible potential. We have become the world champion of over-regulation and zero growth."

@Stone_SkyNews “Could it be anybody?” … “What do you see when you turn off the light!” “I’m not sure but I’m sure it’s not Trump.”

Danish PM Mette Freideriksen’s note in the visitors book when she visited UK today…

@Bubblebathgirl @Ryanair @elonmusk Such a snowflake!

@Ryanair @elonmusk If you’re trying to lower your company’s value by insulting the richest man on earth then you really shouldn’t be in charge of your airline. You’re being reckless. That’s bad for any airline.

.@elonmusk

@FacksonBanda5 @Bubblebathgirl @Ryanair @elonmusk Yep, I am one such person. Never used to be a fan of Michael O’Leary, but I am now.

@Bubblebathgirl @Ryanair @elonmusk Well, seeing as many don't particularly like the man, this may be great advertising for this airline. Multitudes will move in to support the company for the sheer thrill of putting it to you-know-who.

@Feeij27 @Salywebster @NotFarLeftAtAll @GBNEWS I honestly don’t understand why he has any supporters in the UK. I guess every country has its nutters.

@Salywebster @NotFarLeftAtAll @GBNEWS

Starmer or Trump .. it’s Trump for me every day of the week