Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -164
1/10/2025, 12:20:03 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
This is garbage @ByIanJames @latimes
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
Some reporters and scientists are blaming climate change for the lack of rain in LA. It's ridiculous. There's no trend in annual rainfall from 1877 to 2024. We have wet years and dry years.

Climate change isn't responsible for the LA fires. Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass are.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
13d
Climate change is causing the fires in L.A., says the media. But one of the government's top fire experts says, “I don't think these fires are the result of climate change." The media blame climate change to divert attention from the incompetence of the politicians they like.

The statement 'Garbage science that doesn't support the claims made' is dismissive and lacks constructive engagement with the scientific content it criticizes. It is part of a broader debate on climate change and its impact on natural disasters, which is a significant public discourse topic.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it dismisses scientific work without providing evidence or reasoning, potentially undermining public trust in science. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement lacks respect for the privacy and dignity of the scientists involved, as it labels their work as 'garbage' without substantiation. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses dismissive language rather than addressing specific points of disagreement. [-2]