Graeme MacGilchrist
@gmacgilchrist.bsky.social
Oceanographer and climate scientist. Senior research fellow at U. of St Andrews.
It’s for good reason that they’re the flagship bird for Wingspan!
November 9, 2025 at 12:14 PM
It’s for good reason that they’re the flagship bird for Wingspan!
I cannot stand the “critics say” framing. What on earth could you call the NHS surcharge — a fee for a service that you concurrently pay taxes for — other than double taxation? It is blatant to the point of absurdity. Dump it in the river.
October 22, 2025 at 6:53 AM
I cannot stand the “critics say” framing. What on earth could you call the NHS surcharge — a fee for a service that you concurrently pay taxes for — other than double taxation? It is blatant to the point of absurdity. Dump it in the river.
One of the more damning indictments on the global financial system is that “ethical investments” exist, thereby affirming that alternatives are explicitly blind to ethics.
August 31, 2025 at 10:29 AM
One of the more damning indictments on the global financial system is that “ethical investments” exist, thereby affirming that alternatives are explicitly blind to ethics.
... both of the two top-cited authors are authors of the report. Ross McKitrick has twice as many papers cited as the next top count. And that's John Christy.
And the eagle-eyed might also recognise some other ClimateBall favourites.
7/n
And the eagle-eyed might also recognise some other ClimateBall favourites.
7/n
August 14, 2025 at 9:07 PM
... both of the two top-cited authors are authors of the report. Ross McKitrick has twice as many papers cited as the next top count. And that's John Christy.
And the eagle-eyed might also recognise some other ClimateBall favourites.
7/n
And the eagle-eyed might also recognise some other ClimateBall favourites.
7/n
Now, the field is evolving quickly, and the authors supposedly focused on post-2020 work. They would surely not rely on old, tired articles and arguments.
Alas, half of the citations were pre-2020. Womp.
4/
Alas, half of the citations were pre-2020. Womp.
4/
August 14, 2025 at 9:07 PM
Now, the field is evolving quickly, and the authors supposedly focused on post-2020 work. They would surely not rely on old, tired articles and arguments.
Alas, half of the citations were pre-2020. Womp.
4/
Alas, half of the citations were pre-2020. Womp.
4/
Me, @codeandcurrents.bsky.social, and ChatGPT had an excellent time vibe-coding our way to an assessment of the citations in the DOE's "critical review" of climate science.
A wee 🧵 of highlights...
1/n
A wee 🧵 of highlights...
1/n
August 14, 2025 at 9:07 PM
Me, @codeandcurrents.bsky.social, and ChatGPT had an excellent time vibe-coding our way to an assessment of the citations in the DOE's "critical review" of climate science.
A wee 🧵 of highlights...
1/n
A wee 🧵 of highlights...
1/n