Quarter of all tweets about climate change produced by bots
It is a pet peeve of mine when I hear a scientist parrot this trope:<p>&quot;always kind of wondering why there’s persistent levels of denial about something that the science is more or less settled on&quot;<p>It seems like we have lost all rational and respect for skepticism and correlating verification in science.<p>Personally I think warming is real (I am skeptical about all  the doomsday predictions, as all of them have been flat out wrong.) but I would far from venture to say it is settled, there are still really big issues like the disapproval of the Hockeystick paper which a portion of other research relies on. The Pause Buster paper and the major discrepancy in Tree Ring data. Not to mention that the CRU antics gives plenty of valid reasons to be skeptical of clear agendas invading science. These bots being more proof of the case, there are clearly agendas on both sides and everything needs to be validated. Skepticism is a health part of science and making authoritarian statements like &quot;it is settled&quot; only invites the suspicion that one is trying to deflect true scrutiny, whether that is the intent or not.