Climate alarmists caught faking sea level rise!!!

[skookerasbil]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

lol........nothing sways the "climate scientists". Doesn't matter what it is........ever. Raises the radar of anybody with half a brain........but not members of the religion.

Scams are ghey

Nothing sways the scientists, eh? Said every failed scientist and ignorant, uneducated fool, ever.

s0n........you're not getting it. If your scientists were so brilliant and the science so exact and compelling, the last 20 years would look a lot different than it does now. The fact is, nobody is caring and the ignorant, uneducated fools known as skeptics..........are winning. Winning huge actually.........Paris is dead.......no climate legislation in the United States in over 10 years........solar energy still only accounts with providing us with a smidge over 1% of our electricity.........Cap and Trade is dead as a doornail..........the EPA is getting ransacked as we speak........still zero mention of climate change in any presidential debate..........green congressional candidates getting their clocks cleaned in every mid-term election.............

The "science"??


Its a fucking internet hobby in 2017!!


Its all about the politics s0n.......missed the memo eh?


Who's not winning?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

lol........nothing sways the "climate scientists". Doesn't matter what it is........ever. Raises the radar of anybody with half a brain........but not members of the religion.

Scams are ghey

Nothing sways the scientists, eh? Said every failed scientist and ignorant, uneducated fool, ever.

s0n........you're not getting it. If your scientists were so brilliant and the science so exact and compelling, the last 20 years would look a lot different than it does now. The fact is, nobody is caring and the ignorant, uneducated fools known as skeptics..........are winning. Winning huge actually.........Paris is dead.......no climate legislation in the United States in over 10 years........solar energy still only accounts with providing us with a smidge over 1% of our electricity.........Cap and Trade is dead as a doornail..........the EPA is getting ransacked as we speak........still zero mention of climate change in any presidential debate..........green congressional candidates getting their clocks cleaned in every mid-term election.............

The "science"??


Its a fucking internet hobby in 2017!!


Who's not winning?

You are wise to stick to embarrassingly stupid appeals to emotion. When you actually try to wade into any of the actual material, you embarrass yourself badly. You arent embarrassing scientists or presenting any actual challenge to accepted theories by prancing and dancing and cackling. But you think you are, which is both adorable and sad.

You are a liar and an undeducated slob with less than no competence in any scientific topic. But you think you are going to "strikeout a big leaguer", because that's your fantasy. You are a delusional, ineffectual fool who can only hope to influence any of this via emotional fallacy

 

[skookerasbil]

lol..........and those duped by the religion continue the epic losing.............

https://qz.com/1144207/the-worlds-astonishing-dependence-on-fossil-fuels-hasnt-changed-in-40-years/

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data. Considering that I've published papers on finding image and signal content in places where PREVIOUSLY -- folks thought were "just noise". I've been an invited speaker at Intl conferences on advanced Time/Frequency signal/image processing. A little ole temperature or sea level chart is NOT intimidating to me. IN FACT, given what I've seen in the GW papers, I could help some of these idiots not APPEAR to be idiots in the ways that they choose to do stochastic signal analysis.

You don't "SWAY" folks who want phony results that FIT their biased narratives. There's only one way to deal with that. And THEY now CONTROL the raw data and the access to publishing. So that critiques and dissent are stifled..

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

lol........nothing sways the "climate scientists". Doesn't matter what it is........ever. Raises the radar of anybody with half a brain........but not members of the religion.

Scams are ghey

Nothing sways the scientists, eh? Said every failed scientist and ignorant, uneducated fool, ever.

Not ALL of them.. But there's a cadre of folks in every GW "specialty" that now CONTROL and restrict the dialogue and review. MANY OF WHOM leak fantastical tales to the media, public, political leadership that is not backed up by their work. You have primadonnas like Mann and Trenberth that run to the media with biased reviews of their peers work and purposely misinterpret it to the public. And then -- there's plausible denialibility, because it wasn't the AUTHORS that greatly exaggerated their own work. This is the regime of GW "press releases" up to about 6 years ago. It largely STOPPED, when all the projections failed and no accelerations or doomsday confirmations appeared. But STILL -- about 5% of the top folks in the field -- BECAME top folks in their field by exaggerating the meaning of the initial GW prognostications and scaring the living crap out of the common folks.

For instance. Go ask this PREEMINENT Climate scientist for his RAW data set. See if he can FIND IT. And THEN -- lemme know how many requesters can get it..
You REALLY THINK this guy has his ducks in a row??

 

[SSDD]

No, the idea of giving that nonsense ('they're all just fudging') any credibility does not occur to me. The accusation is preposterous, and I am certain you have absolutely no idea of how many people you are accusing of fraud.

Actually, I am accusing relatively few people of fraud. I am accusing a great many of intellectual laziness or simple poor education...climate science is, after all a soft science that doesn't go into much depth in the areas of chemistry, physics, etc.

I believe climate science is in large part victim of an error cascade...this happens when errors are injected, either deliberately, or accidentally into the science at is foundation. These errors are carried forward in practically all of the literature either through intellectual laziness, poor education, or philosophical bias. In any event, simply accepting the errors and using them as if they were true in present and future work continues the error cascade and only makes the field that much more resistant to the "self" correction that science is supposed to have built in.

And to imply that a person would get paid more via research grants than they would shilling for energy companies (which have been racking up record profits, as it turns out) is also absurd.

Clearly you have never actually looked at the difference in money being spent by adherents to the consensus vs skeptics...it is something like 1000 to 1...at that rate, skepticism shouldn't even exist, yet it won't go away because climate science just keeps looking more like pseudoscience every day.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

Never mentioned is the difficulty of obtaining meaningful measurements of ocean temperature. Abrupt thermal layers vary in depth all of the time as well as their severity. Take a measurement at depth A in one location and come back a year later and measure at the same depth will have a different reading simply because the thermal layer has shifted.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

lol........nothing sways the "climate scientists". Doesn't matter what it is........ever. Raises the radar of anybody with half a brain........but not members of the religion.

Scams are ghey

Nothing sways the scientists, eh? Said every failed scientist and ignorant, uneducated fool, ever.

s0n........you're not getting it. If your scientists were so brilliant and the science so exact and compelling, the last 20 years would look a lot different than it does now. The fact is, nobody is caring and the ignorant, uneducated fools known as skeptics..........are winning. Winning huge actually.........Paris is dead.......no climate legislation in the United States in over 10 years........solar energy still only accounts with providing us with a smidge over 1% of our electricity.........Cap and Trade is dead as a doornail..........the EPA is getting ransacked as we speak........still zero mention of climate change in any presidential debate..........green congressional candidates getting their clocks cleaned in every mid-term election.............

The "science"??


Its a fucking internet hobby in 2017!!


Who's not winning?

You are wise to stick to embarrassingly stupid appeals to emotion. When you actually try to wade into any of the actual material, you embarrass yourself badly. You arent embarrassing scientists or presenting any actual challenge to accepted theories by prancing and dancing and cackling. But you think you are, which is both adorable and sad.

You are a liar and an undeducated slob with less than no competence in any scientific topic. But you think you are going to "strikeout a big leaguer", because that's your fantasy. You are a delusional, ineffectual fool who can only hope to influence any of this via emotional fallacy

A delusional fool who makes a habit out of poking progressives in the eye with a red hot poker like...........all the time. No appeals to emotion there. The point is s0n, nobody cares about the accepted scientific theories. If they did, your side wouldn't be losing so badly. I deal only in absolutes which are not even debatable, like with this thread: fossil fuels have been dominating for decades and will continue to dominate for decades to come ( well.....according to the 2016 Obama EIA projections ).

The science is not having any impact in the real world.....its theory to banter about in internet forums like this one. Essentially...........a hobby. The alarmists have been lobbing bombs for almost 25 years...........to no effect. In this forum every day for almost 10 years is a hoot for me while you s0n........Geeez.........every post riddled with anger and misery!

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

Never mentioned is the difficulty of obtaining meaningful measurements of ocean temperature. Abrupt thermal layers vary in depth all of the time as well as their severity. Take a measurement at depth A in one location and come back a year later and measure at the same depth will have a different reading simply because the thermal layer has shifted.

Which is why looking for GW signatures should be confined the atmosphere. And ocean water temps at any depth should be a separate study.. Whatever interaction there is between the GHouse and the Oceans will be defined by temperature interface above the water. After all LongWave IR doesn't propagate thru water anyways.

 

[mamooth]

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.

Given your history here, obviously not.

First, your unhinged political fanaticism means you're wildly biased. You start with your desired result and work backwards, twisting the data in order to reach your predetermined conclusion.

Second, you usually fail at data analysis. You don't understand rather mundane corrections, so you declare what you don't understand must be a socialist conspiracy.

Of course, your conspiracy theory makes zero sense. Those corrections make the warming look _smaller_. Since that unpleasant fact contradicts your cult's dogma, you're forced to fabricate a story that the corrections actually do the opposite.

Prior to 2014, your "it's like a step response from solar input" theory could be defended. But after 3 record-breaking years, that theory is laughable, being how the global temperature trend now looks nothing like a response to a step function. So, the claimed physical basis of your claims is also conclusively disproved. You'll still cling to it, as you've got nothing else.

You can hurl insults now. After all, we all know you've never been able to face anyone in a debate on actual science. Your thing is to loudly pronounce your own brilliance, and then declare how all the peons are too stupid to be worthy of your attention.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.

Given your history here, obviously not.

First, your unhinged political fanaticism means you're wildly biased. You start with your desired result and work backwards, twisting the data in order to reach your predetermined conclusion.

Second, you usually fail at data analysis. You don't understand rather mundane corrections, so you declare what you don't understand must be a socialist conspiracy.

Of course, your conspiracy theory makes zero sense. Those corrections make the warming look _smaller_. Since that unpleasant fact contradicts your cult's dogma, you're forced to fabricate a story that the corrections actually do the opposite.

Prior to 2014, your "it's like a step response from solar input" theory could be defended. But after 3 record-breaking years, that theory is laughable, being how the global temperature trend now looks nothing like a response to a step function. So, the claimed physical basis of your claims is also conclusively disproved. You'll still cling to it, as you've got nothing else.

You can hurl insults now. After all, we all know you've never been able to face anyone in a debate on actual science. Your thing is to loudly pronounce your own brilliance, and then declare how all the peons are too stupid to be worthy of your attention.

No insults needed s0n.........we don't have to debate the science, actually. The onus is on your side to make its case, which it clearly has not yet. If it had, Paris wouldn't be dead. Cap and Trade would be a roaring success. The EPA wouldn't be decimated like it is now. We'd have had climate change legislation in the last ten years. Fossil fuel dependence us virtually unchanged over the last 40 years.( and will continue to dominate for decades

The climate bozo's have declared that the science is decided. But to what end? Where is that having any impact in the real world, outside of internet forums and the media? Show us where the science is mattering.........we stoopids need to be educated. Provide some links please.............

 

[flacaltenn]

But after 3 record-breaking years, that theory is laughable, being how the global temperature trend now looks nothing like a response to a step function

Don't be a horse's ass. If you don't UNDERSTAND what I say. Just ask..


There is NO STOCK response to a step function. The response is determined by the Transfer Function of the math describing the system. It COULD ring or oscillate for awhile. It COULD be a perfectly linear ramp (single slope or opposing slopes). It actually could cause long lasting oscillations. It COULD be a delayed exponential smooth response.

ALL determined by the INTERNALS of the system that is responding. ]

The one thing that the output is NOT likely to be in a system with complex delays, interdependencies, feedbacks and storage is the SAME FUCKING SHAPE, TIMING AND DURATION of the stimulus into the system.

Yet, for DECADES the warmers put up "correlated" graphs of CO2 and temperature. Which ASSUME the LEAST LIKELY complex system response to the shape of the CO2 input stimulus.

And the models of the INTERNALS of the Earth climate system are not mature enough and focus too much just on CO2 as the principle driver of the temperature on this planet..

Go ahead.. Go for jackass status and try again..

 

[skookerasbil]

I never do get a link from any of these bozo's!!


weak

 

[IanC]

I believe climate science is in large part victim of an error cascade...this happens when errors are injected, either deliberately, or accidentally into the science at is foundation. These errors are carried forward in practically all of the literature either through intellectual laziness, poor education, or philosophical bias. In any event, simply accepting the errors and using them as if they were true in present and future work continues the error cascade and only makes the field that much more resistant to the "self" correction that science is supposed to have built in

I don't always agree with you but I have no problems acknowledging your statements that are very close to the truth.

This is one of them.

 

[IanC]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data. Considering that I've published papers on finding image and signal content in places where PREVIOUSLY -- folks thought were "just noise". I've been an invited speaker at Intl conferences on advanced Time/Frequency signal/image processing. A little ole temperature or sea level chart is NOT intimidating to me. IN FACT, given what I've seen in the GW papers, I could help some of these idiots not APPEAR to be idiots in the ways that they choose to do stochastic signal analysis.

You don't "SWAY" folks who want phony results that FIT their biased narratives. There's only one way to deal with that. And THEY now CONTROL the raw data and the access to publishing. So that critiques and dissent are stifled..

Scientific papers are not unfathomable to laymen with a reasonable level of intelligence and knowledge. Climate science often works with data can be construed in various ways. Climate scientists often act like lawyers trying to defend their clients rather than impartial judges seeking the truth.

Cherrypicking and circular logic are frequent flaws. Error Cascade is also a problem, with more effort being put into confirming preexisting conclusions than forming new and better conclusions. Misdirection by omission is also prevalent when findings are reported as catastrophic by the media when the actual papers don't support that conclusion and the authors do nothing to correct the story. Plausible deniability is de rigor.

 

[mamooth]

There is NO STOCK response to a step function. The response is determined by the Transfer Function of the math describing the system. It COULD ring or oscillate for awhile. It COULD be a perfectly linear ramp (single slope or opposing slopes). It actually could cause long lasting oscillations. It COULD be a delayed exponential smooth response.

Instead of "it could be ...", you should tell us what the response of the climate system _is_, and remove all the mystery about your theory. That way, we wouldn't have to guess about what you're proposing.

Remember the scientific method? Propose a physical mechanism, make a prediction based on that mechanism, see if it comes true.

Climate scientists have passed that test with flying colors. Anyone familiar with the actual science knows that.

Deniers? Most of them proudly refuse to make any actual predictions. Those few that have made them have gotten them totally wrong.

Yet, for DECADES the warmers put up "correlated" graphs of CO2 and temperature. Which ASSUME the LEAST LIKELY complex system response to the shape of the CO2 input stimulus

Nobody assumed any such thing. The very complex models predicted it, and those predictions closely matched the behavior of the earth. You sound jealous of the proven success of the climate scientists.

Go ahead.. Go for jackass status and try again..

40 years of stunning success from climate science has earned climate scientists major credibility around the world. In contrast, deniers can only point to 40 years of cowardice and failure. If you want to change that, stop waving your hands around and instead try making some predictions that don't fail. However, if you're not actually interested in the science, and only care about earning political brownie points, keep on insulting people as a way to evade making any predictions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Instead of "it could be ...", you should tell us what the response of the climate system _is_, and remove all the mystery about your theory. That way, we wouldn't have to guess about what you're proposing.

I might be able to do that IF all time and money in Climate Science had been focused on how the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY WORKS.. But instead, the focus was on showing CO2 as the principle driver of climate. For godsake, They can't even agree on Climate Sensitivity numbers. The simplest part of converting forcings to temperatures. And they act like just having a SINGLE climate sensitivity for the entire planet is totally acceptable.

I can't create the underlying investigation. Time was squandered. Lots of guesses ventured. Instead of REPLACING those guesses with actual system descriptions..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.

You clearly do not, or you would be in the scientific community, publishing your denier garbage. Give me a break.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.

You clearly do not, or you would be in the scientific community, publishing your denier garbage. Give me a break.

Well you'd be wrong. I actually HAVE applied my work in fields very much related to Climate. I headed a group that produced 2nd gen multi-spectral image analysis for Earth Resource satellites. Both hardware and algorithm design and verification. When your specialty is image/signal processing, that art is applicable to virtually EVERY field of science. I've worked on everything from analyzing Dolphin speech for SeaWorld/Navy to cracking communication channels for the intelligence community. Have worked in over a DOZEN scientific disciplines. And not afraid to learn the lingo and the science for them. I've attended HUNDREDS of cardiac cath procedures to understand what the radiologist/cardiologist is looking for. Just finished a "bionic" arm/leg post surgical frame that automatically adjusts as the bones mend and grow.

I consider that -- FAR more qualified and sciency than say a frog biologist who gets to publish on GW effect on frogs and is considered "a climate scientist"..

 

[flacaltenn]

40 years of stunning success from climate science has earned climate scientists major credibility around the world.

You funny.. What it's earned them is a loss of traction for the circus train that WAS GW/CC..

It's spinning wheels and sucking fumes right now...