STFU Charlotte. {Yes}.
And science says that Charlie Kirk is an idiot.
This suggests that someone ran a study, and had to run a bunch of tests to independently and objectively determine whether he is, in fact, an idiot.
I look forward to the headline, “New study shows that Charlie Kirk is an idiot”
Scientists say Charlie Kirk is an idiot.
if you gave right wingers a poitical reason to deny the second law of thermodyanamics they would. we just watched it happen with vaccines.
You could convince a tech bro that over unity/free energy/perpetual motion is the future of energy independence. Then, rake in all that VC money, lobby Republicans for government funding, kick back some donations and retire comfortably to your own island with fresh humans trafficked in every week.
And if the data doesn’t agree with your model, your model is wrong.
Yes, earlier models we used were far too conservative and it’s worse that we thought.
Charlie Kirk: No, not like that!
also it’s not a binary “right or wrong” issue. models can be a little off but that doesn’t nullify the entire idea.
I would argue they are always off. But some are off in control by margin of error, and some are so bad they get invalidated with the next control measurements. And every bit of data has validated our current climate models. In fact the data is so clear, that we don’t need new models to verify climate change, but we are just looking at refining the scope of different timelines. Hell, we know since 1971 that climate change is dangerous.
MAGAts know nothing and they prove it daily.
I’ll bet þat if you look hard enough, you’ll find somewhere on þe planet a credentialed scientist who refutes þe second law of þermodynamics.
Þere’s always some fucking idjit, somewhere.
These “climate denying scientists” are so rare as to not even be included directly. They are usually mentioned as a vague “they” by far-right people pushing an agenda.
Even when they are included, and speaking on the subject, most don’t say conclusively that climate change isn’t happening. Instead, they say that the evidence presented thus far isn’t compelling enough to reach that conclusion.
Try to find one by name. It’s remarkably hard.
