Twitter | Search | |
simon holmes à court
energy transition specialist: sharing knowledge, informing opinions. change is inevitable: it's just a question of speed. likes == bookmarks, !endorsements
31,841
Tweets
6,410
Following
14,068
Followers
Tweets
simon holmes à court 4h
Replying to @aussie41353
if folks have quality, alternative opinions they should get them published in leading journals and withstand the scrutiny that entails. …until a theory can pass that test, it’s barely worth giving the time of day.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
Replying to @aussie41353
but i don’t understand why you believe the scientists who say asbestos is poisonous — how do you know they’re not ’on the take’? how do you know they’re not wrong?
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
nah, both terms are still used interchangeably. most scientists i know call it ‘anthropogenic global warming’ or ‘climate change’. the core science of the greenhouse effect is 194 years old.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
Replying to @TheIPA
…and there are many more logic and data issues with that document.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
Replying to @aussie41353
but... but... dont you think “scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth”?
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
so nothing that meet my criteria then.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
Replying to @capone_guido @myGridGB
sorry, i don’t follow any other markets at the retail level.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
Replying to @aussie41353
how do you know it’s not safe?
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
again, sounds like your theory is that the scientific method has completely broken down, yet you reply upon it every second of the day.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 4h
can you name any globally significant, widely accepted theories, that survived decades, upon which tens of thousands of papers were written, that turned out to be flat out wrong?
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 5h
of course not, nobody believes that. but how do you *know* the theory of gravity is correct? what’s stopping you jumping out of a high window? i mean, lots of scientists believe it’d kill you, but they’re very often wrong. aren’t they?
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court retweeted
MyGrid GB 6h
British electricity mix at midday on 22 Jul 2018 Nuclear 23.7% Gas 38.4% Coal 0.0% Wind 5.4% Solar 18.6% Hydro 0.3% Biomass 3.1% Import 10.0% Storage 0.5% Other 0.1% Generation 30GW Carbon intensity 209gCO2eq./kWh vs a target of 50-100gCO2/kWh by 2030
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 5h
quite funny. the box quote helps explain climate science!
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 5h
the scientific method has moved on immensely since then. the problem with your argument is that it would suggest that all science is BS and nothing is knowable.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 5h
why do you think so?
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 5h
we all are when we hypothesise, but you apply a filter so that vast majority of positions one holds are correct. the scientific process is an extension of this process. bad ideas don’t live long. good ideas rise to the top and survive. AGW science is in great shape.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 5h
if i could find just *one* paper strongly supporting your hypothesis in a serious journal i’d read it and dig deeper. …but to date: nothing. the science of AGW is almost universally accepted. opposing theories are rare, thinly supported and seemingly not reputably published.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 6h
sounds like he made some silly predictions or that he’s being misquoted. either way, silly to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Reply Retweet Like
simon holmes à court 6h
…and that’s the beauty of the scientific method. science advances even though most ideas are dead ends.
Reply Retweet Like