CharlieB

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@ClarkeMicah @fpc Peter, the best way to track the evolution of a BBC online story is via Newssniffer, and you were correct.

https://t.co/LHxQbMZpAb

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@MikeNellis No evidence that Tina Peters plan has anything to do with martial law. It's about election integrity. Tapper/CNN bullshit.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@IfindWankers Without a shadow of a doubt, that's Rory.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@nickwallis "It appeared Mulreany was an RCN member."

If so, I wonder if the RCN ever asked him to reflect on his values and whether they reflected the RCN’s values.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@MartinSLewis Dear Anonymous, if losing £150 had you scurrying for the exit door, investing is not for you. Put it in the best interest bearing account you can find.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@AndrewOrlowski Prince Harry.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@andersen New loss in today, though in a different contest.

https://t.co/Rrb1iGTYWw

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@zatzi Signs are that this is a done deal.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@StevenEdginton Some years ago, there was a programme on Radio 5 about the law hosted by Rob Rinder. There was a discussion on the rules for the cross-examination of young people. Can you guess where, according to Rob, these rules were failing?

[Willis Eschenbach @WEschenbach]

Roger Pielke pulls back the covers on the "climate attribution" scam that says everything is caused by climate change.

He shows how using their bogus method, he can prove climate change caused an increase in baseball home runs …

Well done, that man!

w.
https://t.co/x34GCZ6KP3

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

BWHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣

There is nothing remotely “scientific” about this new “analysis” or anything else World Weather Attribution (WWA) cooks up.

The WWA's sole purpose is to pay academics with no moral compass to “find” evidence that man-made climate change caused or significantly contributed to individual extreme weather or weather-related events, in this case, the recent avalanche-induced flooding in Nepal. That “evidence” is then intended to be used in court to prop frivolous lawsuits against coal, oil, and natural gas companies.

Co-founder Friederike Otto admitted this much in an interview with Politico in April 2021, stating,

🗨️ “𝑈𝑛𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑.”

🔗https://t.co/ETUBune0A8

Is that not a conflict of interest (COI)?

What's more, the WWA receives significant funding from left-wing environmental groups including the Grantham Foundation, European Climate Foundation, and the Bezos Earth Fund. This information is readily available on their website.

🔗https://t.co/quJxib0xlo

In 2022 the Bezos Earth Fund put $10 million toward the WWA, Climate Central, and the Yale Program on climate change communication to “scale effective communication on the links between climate change and extreme weather” and to push a Climate Shift Index into local forecasts.

🔗https://t.co/67nyoknY0x

Is that not also a serious COI?

Like the majority of WWA “flash studies,” this one on the recent disaster in Nepal has made headlines, but it has not been published in a scientific journal, much less subject to “peer review.”

I find that part particularly interesting because while I couldn't care less about that academic gatekeeping process personally, every climate panic merchant that I encounter online demands that climate skeptics and lukewarmers (or as they so lovingly label us, “climate deniers”) submit their findings to academic journals like Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and Nature Communications to undergo peer review. This is because in their warped minds, no ideas can be valid unless they are agreed upon by other academics in a circle jerk session.

Finally, the WWA comes up with their conclusions by using counterfactuals. They take the event that just happened (e.g., the flooding in Nepal) and then ask a climate model two questions:

1⃣ How often does this event occur in a simulated present-day climate?

2⃣ How often would it occur in a simulated world with no human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?

They then divide those two probabilities and get “X times more likely,” which is then inserted into these hyperbolic headlines.

But because WWA rarely uses observations before the 1940s or 1950s (and because observations outside of the United States are fairly limited before then), the counterfactual world without GHG emissions that the WWA models is hypothetical. The model has to invent pre-industrial weather conditions, and the outcome is entirely contingent on the assumptions the authors of these papers make about parameterizations.

Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the findings of WWA's new “flash study” on Nepal's flooding are bunk. At the very least, they are questionable due to the organization's COIs and motives. The WWA is not an independent scientific organization, and anything that they publish ought to be taken with a grain of salt until further analyses are conducted. But disgraceful news outlets like CNN and the Associated Press don't care because they are paid to promote activism.

Rigorous scientific studies take months or even years to fully conduct, and nothing the WWA does has any semblance to that.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@_BoldPolitics Vous vous appelez David Paulden.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@annavanpraagh Do you hear that sound from the mainstream media? No, me neither. Now imagine if the victims were non-white and Rory had said the same thing. The noise from the MSM would be deafening and Rory would be in trouble. As it is, a brief apology will be the end of it for Rory.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@JohnCleese Well Burham was tending to the buses in Manchester, but Healey really should have been aware.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@JakeWSimons Disgraceful. I'm sure they did not have this sort of thing in mind when the rules about contacting the press were made.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@GiveUsAQuid Back in the day, troofers claimed no planes troofers were a government plot to discredit troofers. Nah, they're just more barking mad than regular troofers.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@carolecadwalla Call it The Channel 4 Effect.

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@THR "To put it crudely, my first thought on exiting the screening room was, “We’re fucked.”"

Speak for yourself, matey. And if people like you are fucked, why would that be a bad thing?

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@grok @CharlieWalsham_ @SophyRidgeSky Thanks @Grok. Data centres and electricity generation and delivery systems need maintenance, repair and replacement. How would AI plan to surive without us here to do that?

[CharlieB @Beeboidal]

@grok @CharlieWalsham_ @SophyRidgeSky @Grok, in the view of the people who consider such things, what would be AI's rationale for killing us all?