What does the science say

Exposing the rhetoricians using sophistical interpretations of science to advance a personal or political agenda

[What does the science say @does_science]

Blocked harder than CO2 blocks infrared radiation.

[What does the science say @does_science]

@NoTricksZone Quick! Inform the planet it should immediately change to -18c because co2 is now not capable of greenhouse effect.

[What does the science say @does_science]

@brjma @yota_berlin Haha! Nice stuff Brendan, you nailed it 💪

[What does the science say @does_science]

@yota_berlin @KiryeNet Someone should inform the planet it should immediately change to -18c because of this amazing study

[What does the science say @does_science]

@AndyOz2 @EcoSenseNow Hi Andy, if Australia implemented a carbon tax, why would we give the money directly to the One World Order? Surely we’d decide to keep it!

[What does the science say @does_science]

@SimonMaxfield8 @ClimateRealists @Channel4News @alextomo Your graph looked like it was put together by a child, it looks dubious.

You also don’t seem to understand what it is showing

[What does the science say @does_science]

@SimonMaxfield8 @ClimateRealists @Channel4News @alextomo Those graphs ARE from the DMI, yours was not.

It should also be noted that these are additions to SMB, ie not including melting

[What does the science say @does_science]

@SimonMaxfield8 @ClimateRealists @Channel4News @alextomo You couldn’t post a more dubious looking graph, and the fact you did it in a tweet calling the news misleading is so ironic

[What does the science say @does_science]

@scrowder @jack First take the plank out of your own eye
https://t.co/lrx418Ssyw

[What does the science say @does_science]

@ClimateCatastr1 @MRobertsQLD @teena_moda @ProfBrianCox You're practically a new age Orwell, don't know how I haven't read more of your works

[What does the science say @does_science]

@Doug_J_Mitchell @MRobertsQLD @ProfBrianCox These replies certainly are an exercise in delineating the satire from the pure and unabashed ignorance

[What does the science say @does_science]

@MRobertsQLD @ProfBrianCox Of course they only are "manipulated" if you go out of your way misinterpret them.

https://t.co/L3OjM7eoVC

[What does the science say @does_science]

@JunkScience @YahooFinance A carbon tax is actually the most well supported (empirically) in the scientific literature.

Your assertion is baseless

[What does the science say @does_science]

@markcojuangco @luisbaram Well because I'm not actually familiar with the exact numbers, just being conservative, by the looks of it it could be 1, but I agree zero most likely.

Future impacts also should be considered, of course highly uncertain, nonetheless small.

[What does the science say @does_science]

@markcojuangco @luisbaram And it's been argued the evac caused >1000 consequent deaths.

Fukushima is an case study of the safety of nuclear

[What does the science say @does_science]

@markcojuangco @luisbaram To think Fukushima is used as a reason to not use nuclear is baffling.

Less than 10 can be said to have from radiation (absolute max)

[What does the science say @does_science]

@markcojuangco @luisbaram *genuinely

[What does the science say @does_science]

@markcojuangco @luisbaram That megaton gaff was genuineness bizarre

But nuclear is fundamentally about uncertainty and with such high stakes precautions seem needed