Alex Epstein

@AlexEpstein ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked March 6, 2023

Created

Thu Feb 23 19:39:38 +0000 2023

Likes

312

Retweets

Source

Typefully

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein

The “97%” consensus as defined by the various papers seeking to find agreement among scientists is weak. It doesn't show consensus about the magnitude and danger of impacts. But even if it did, this would only be part of the relevant information to make an energy policy decision. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Feb. 23, 2023

Preceded By

Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein

97% fallacy 2: It ignores the huge benefits, including climate benefits, of fossil fuels By being coupled with the refrain “listen to the scientists,” the “97%” claim is designed to make you only look at the climate side-effects of FFs when making policy—ignoring FFs’ benefits. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Feb. 23, 2023

Followed By

Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein

“Listen to the scientists” on fossil fuel policy sounds compelling, because clearly we need info from climate scientists. But these scientists themselves are not qualified to make FF policy, because that depends on multiple fields, e.g., energy, economics, and adaptation. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Feb. 23, 2023