The Xcretion says that less ice “is consistent with” a weaker jet stream, which does not imply a casual relationship. If A causes B and Y, then B is consistent with Y; or, more accurately, we can produce a useful model of the system that includes both less ice and a weaker jet stream, and have it be internally consistent.
Which is the flaw of social media science these past few years. Theories evolve as new data is presented and new hypotheses are formed. The average twitter denizen won’t have that, no sir, and will with glee smack you with an outdated textbook with equal zeal as a Bible basher.
“FACTS DONT FUGGING CHANGE YOU BIGOT” == “THE WORLD IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE”
reference
I was trying to look up why less polar ice causes shifts in the jet stream and this article cites an active debate around our understanding on this.
The tweet does not really address that point, and makes the cause and effect sound definitive.
The Xcretion says that less ice “is consistent with” a weaker jet stream, which does not imply a casual relationship. If A causes B and Y, then B is consistent with Y; or, more accurately, we can produce a useful model of the system that includes both less ice and a weaker jet stream, and have it be internally consistent.
Send this to the top, folks
Which is the flaw of social media science these past few years. Theories evolve as new data is presented and new hypotheses are formed. The average twitter denizen won’t have that, no sir, and will with glee smack you with an outdated textbook with equal zeal as a Bible basher.
“FACTS DONT FUGGING CHANGE YOU BIGOT” == “THE WORLD IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE”