OK, it’s not the first and certainly not the only tweet we’ve seen challenging those awaiting Monday’s long-predicted solar eclipse to re-examine their own skepticism about man-made climate change — those started weeks ago. But it also wasn’t long ago we were told, “If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with a scientist about science … you’re just wrong.”
Beau Willimon, creator of the U.S. version of “House of Cards,” jumped in with his own variation on what so many are saying Monday: science proved there would be an eclipse, and science has proved man-made climate change, so what’s there to question? We’ll let him go on a bit.
Hey climate-change deniers, the scientific community that predicted the #SolarEclipse2017 is the same one that says climate change is real. pic.twitter.com/JrSsmq6fqS
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
They've achieved overwhelming consensus that global warming is largely due to human impact on the environment: fossil fuels, deforestation.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
This consensus was reached by rigorously studying climate data, confirmed & reconfirmed by thousands of scientists worldwide over decades.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
The fact that you know there is an eclipse today is proof that this scientific method works. It tests the truth. It doesn't make it up.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
So when you see the moon pass in front of the sun today, use that amazing moment to appreciate what science is capable of…
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
Recommended
And consider this: if the scientific community overwhelmingly says climate change is real, it is because they have provided proof…
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
And their proof is as real as the shadow that is passing over the round planet on which you reside, and for which we are responsible.
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
For all of you who are saying that prediction of the eclipse is simple math, not science, how do you think that math was determined?…
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
How do you think the circumference of the earth and moon were discovered? Their rates of rotation? The path of their orbits?
— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) August 21, 2017
Let’s back up a few tweets, right to the beginning. Sure, Twitter limits the length of each tweet, but let’s limit this to anthropogenic climate change — no one really believes the climate doesn’t change, so forget about “climate change deniers” and especially “climate deniers.”
Also, that consensus was not reached by rigorously studying climate data. For anyone interested, on its website NASA points directly to the study — “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” — from which that remarkable 97 percent consensus came from. (Seriously, read the study … especially the section on “sources of uncertainty.”)
Anyone who’d like to can click the link above and read it: just know that the 97 percent number had to come from somewhere, and it came from a study of abstracts of published articles, not climate data, and get this: a lot more scientists are getting published when they predict doom and gloom. None of it is proof that mankind is primarily responsible for changes in climate, hence the need for everyone to run around crying, “Consensus! The science is settled!”
https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/899739672489975809
Can we get a second?
Dumbest tweet of the day. You're welcome. https://t.co/T7a9riuWqW
— Jessica ✨ (@BeingJessica) August 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/EsotericEntityy/status/899665145416241152
could be stupidest tweet ever.1)No one denies the climate changes 2)Predicted eclipse? So what, I predict water freezes at 0C, boils at 100C https://t.co/kiRYKU7Mmr
— Joe Bastardi (@BigJoeBastardi) August 21, 2017
Well, no.
Astronomy is a different scientific community than climatology.
Do you even science, bro? https://t.co/E7uNLl0T5t
— RBe (@RBPundit) August 21, 2017
The failures of climate models' predictions in contrast to ability to predict eclipses shows the huge difference bt climate sci & astronomy https://t.co/MeUiPtrrIT
— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) August 21, 2017
This statement is so wonderfully, perfectly, science-stupid that only the science-religious who don't know shit about science can believe it https://t.co/saG2FBOqx4
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) August 21, 2017
I love the "totally-scientific" idea that if one thing can be calculated with complete accuracy, everything else can be too. https://t.co/TSHjbwx1xj
— Arthur Boreman Once Held His Breath for 30 Seconds (@ArthurBoreman) August 21, 2017
That's impressively ignorant and shows you have no understanding of the scientific method. https://t.co/XMtnuZFwYN
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) August 21, 2017
At the DNC, Hillary Clinton declared, “I believe in science.” So just put on a white lab coat and tell her anything; she’ll buy it.
Faulty: Just because I can calculate how fast I will I hit the ground after jumping off a building won't make my stock predictions accurate. https://t.co/AG43TlFv0H
— Crash Turkey Letalien (@Coach_Crash) August 21, 2017
They already knew the date of this eclipse by the last one in 1979. How many of 1979's climate predictions have panned out this reliably? https://t.co/XGYT9pLuPz
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) August 21, 2017
I'm still waiting to thaw out from the ice age they predicted in the 70's.
That was supposed to be real too. https://t.co/C3JLTDh32n
— BayAreaFrau (@bayareahausfrau) August 21, 2017
This argument is bad and you should feel bad. https://t.co/ChBwaZZxyJ
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/SaucercrabZero/status/899685945884246016
https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/899679536299868160
* * *
Related:
We thought they loved science: Slate, Salon declare pseudoscience behind Google memo ‘terrible,’ ‘flawed’ https://t.co/3oFzTW7TQ5
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 10, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member