We’ve seen this argument before in different forms, but the premise is always the same: science is infallible; scientific fact is reached by consensus; and if you don’t subscribe to man-made global warming then you should have no say in anything.
Which is funny, because if you dare say on Twitter that, according to science there are only two genders, you risk being banned for hate speech.
In any case, Blueprint Earth founder and volcanologist Jess Phoenix says you can’t pick and choose which science you choose to acknowledge; you have to accept them all. It’s kind of like because Bill Nye has an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, he can therefore present himself as an expert climatologist. It’s science.
If you're not willing to listen to scientists about #climatechange, you may want to rethink your excitement over the #MarsLanding. Credit for that goes to #science and #engineering, and you can't pick and choose which science you choose to acknowledge.
— Jess Phoenix ? (@jessphoenix2018) November 26, 2018
If you’re not willing to listen to witch doctors about the importance of blood letting, you may want to rethink your excitement over the new iPhone. https://t.co/jZpoVYEfn6
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 27, 2018
Head on over to Phoenix’s timeline if you want her rebuttals to all of these; she’s keeping busy not changing one mind at a time.
As long as you don't choose to discard or "adjust" data points that don't agree with your theory. #empirical #science You know, real scientific method. NOT… "hundreds of scientists now believe" You don't "believe" in science. Junk science is your foe, not us skeptics.
— Weston Ransdell (@txhills) November 26, 2018
Scientists have successfully sent dozens of spacecraft to Mars since 1960. Over that period, virtually every proposed model of climate has eventually failed (including a spate of 1970s global cooling models), and the spread of ECS in current models is quite wide.
— TallDave (@TallDave7) November 26, 2018
I just realized anyone with a 4 year degree in let’s say biology can call themselves a scientist….I bet there are lots of people out there who didn’t realize they could legit call themselves a scientist…lol ???
— Kimberly Roberts (@12253102) November 26, 2018
Huge difference between factual landing on Mars, studying the planet and the political propaganda on climate change spewed for grants and increasing government power over people.
— afternoonsand (@afternoonsand) November 26, 2018
Can I only listen to the scientists who have no financial or career incentives that might distort their perceptions? (I learned from scientists to ask that question.)
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) November 27, 2018
Career incentives are certainly worth considering; you’re certainly not going to get invited to all the cool scientist parties if you’re a climate change skeptic.
You know who’s not a climate change skeptic? CNN’s Brian Stelter, who agrees that there’s something sad about people denying anthropogenic climate change while still cheering the InSight probe’s landing on Mars today:
Such a sad contrast. At the exact same time NASA experts are celebrating a successful landing on Mars, Trump is dismissing a new climate change report. "I don't believe it."
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) November 26, 2018
Science gets us to Mars, and our leaders ignore it here on earth. https://t.co/k3FUfStGuR
— Arianna Huffington (@ariannahuff) November 27, 2018
Take that back … President Obama at least invited Ahmed “Clock Boy” Mohamed to the White House’s astronomy night. He believed in science.
Contrast indeed. The difference?
One returned results that matched predictions with impeccable accuracy
The other keeps missing the mark so badly we have to transport the goalposts miles and miles: https://t.co/nZJ48brCyx
— Austrian School Bacon (@ThePeoplesBacon) November 26, 2018
One is a group of scientists/engineers working for years as a team for a goal beyond their own self interests; the other is a science denying, narcissistic, unloyal flim flam man.
Which one would you place the lives of future generations in? https://t.co/WVBMTe4Aso
— Rick (@RicknShira) November 26, 2018
— The Straw Poll Report (@StrawPollReport) November 26, 2018
Where’s the contrast in two science-based events happening simultaneously? https://t.co/Fc2fB17jxS
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 27, 2018
— Tall Man Short Hair (@TallManShort) November 26, 2018
There's no connection between the two.
— James (@RealJamesTD) November 26, 2018
You're beyond parody https://t.co/vpcXIRYqgW
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2018
This is a text book use of a non-sequitur to use one bit of news to talk about what you really want to talk about….
— Michael Spires (@inspires25) November 26, 2018
And sadly your network gave time to a convict (Tom Delay) to discuss climate change and disparage climate scientists. Not cool.
— Jon Niola (@JonNiola) November 26, 2018
"Chief Media Correspondent" means what exactly? https://t.co/V8oBywNcye
— Blame Big Government (@BlameBigGovt) November 26, 2018
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) November 26, 2018