Get your Climate Skeptics app!!

[SSDD]

I have asked before...what courses did I not take that would disqualify me from analyzing the literature and making a determination...

How much work have you done as a climate scientist?

None at all...that would be a demotion for me....and what difference do you think that makes....I asked you what college courses I have not taken that would disqualify me from analyzing the science? Can you answer or not? Or might you just admit that you have no idea....and were just speaking out of ignorance in defense of your quasi religious belief...

 

[Confounding]

and what difference do you think that makes...

You don't think years of work in a particular field makes a difference in your knowledge and understanding of it?

 

[SSDD]

and what difference do you think that makes...

You don't think years of work in a particular field makes a difference in your knowledge and understanding of it?

Not at all...that is the good thing about being educated...a good education prepares you for all sorts of things....like being able to look at scientific literature and determining if it has merit, or if it is just pseudoscientific drivel...like knowing from the literature, what the weaknesses are of the argument being made....like being able to ask for very basic data that you know that the entire field of science can not produce....If the AGW hypothesis had any merit, the observed, measured evidence supporting it would be inescapable...they have had 30+ years to get at least one piece of such evidence and they still don't have it... What sort of science is that?

 

[SSDD]

You don't think years of work in a particular field makes a difference in your knowledge and understanding of it?

Not at all

Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

Alas, it is you who is incredibly ignorant...by your own admission....tell me, what explicit knowledge do you think a climate scientist has that I, or anyone else who has a pretty good education doesn't? Do you think there is something esoteric about climate science that makes the knowledge only available to a select club? What might that knowledge be? Do tell.

 

[Oddball]

Only if the authority can actually produce the evidence necessary to back up their claims

They believe they've done that; you think they haven't. I'll appeal to the authority of scientists when it comes to how science works.

How is it that you came by such a belief?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Only if the authority can actually produce the evidence necessary to back up their claims

They believe they've done that; you think they haven't. I'll appeal to the authority of scientists when it comes to how science works.

You will in time realize that your chosen list of scientists are too dependent on climate models, emission scenarios and assumptions. None of it testable and verifiable, which is a major factor in why there are skeptics of the AGW conjecture that has been failing for years now in two key areas.

The short term predictive value of warming trends that always falls short and below the minimum level, and the still unseen Troposphere "hotspot". Severe storms, sea level, and winter precipitation realities are NOT matching the prediction/projection's trends at all.

The second part of the conjecture never shows up as a factor.

The rest are normally called pseudoscience...….

 

[Crick]

You will in time realize that your chosen list of scientists are too dependent on climate models, emission scenarios and assumptions. None of it testable and verifiable, which is a major factor in why there are skeptics of the AGW conjecture that has been failing for years now in two key areas.

Climate models, emission scenarios and assumptions are all testable and verifiable. Your claim is patently false.

The short term predictive value of warming trends that always falls short and below the minimum level

That has not been the case.

and the still unseen Troposphere "hotspot".

You've fallen behind. The tropospheric hotspot has been seen

Severe storms, sea level, and winter precipitation realities are NOT matching the prediction/projection's trends at all.

I disagree. Where are you getting all these bogus opinions?

The second part of the conjecture never shows up as a factor.

Meaningless.

The rest are normally called pseudoscience...….

What you have just rattled off would be pseudoscience. All of your facts are unsupported because they're wrong. That about says it all.

 

[SSDD]

The rest are normally called pseudoscience...….

True enough...if it were real science, the predictive failures would have falsified the hypothesis years ago and work would have begun on a hypothesis that doesn't litter the landscape with its predictive failures. Maybe by now, the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere moves via conduction would have been recognized and the new hypothesis would make predictions based on that physical reality rather than the fiction of radiation being the main means of energy transport through the troposphere.

In pseudoscience, it doesn't matter how many predictive failures a hypothesis has so long as the funding continues..

 

[Crick]

So, Tommy, could you explain why you think an emissions scenario wouldn't be testable?

 

[SSDD]

So, Tommy, could you explain why you think an emissions scenario wouldn't be testable?

It is testable and failed miserably....the temperature is lower than hansen's business as usual prediction even though it wasn't business as usual...CO2 increased 25% over his business as usual CO2 projections and there were not one, but two very large el nino events that pushed the temperature up for him...had they not happened, he would not only have not been in the ball park, he couldn't have seen the ball park from a 2000 foot tower from where he predicted the temperature to be...

His prediction embodies the term "even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime."

 

[skookerasbil]

(KillerSpray.com) COOL BLACK DUDE SAYS BLACKS DON'T BELIEVE UN GLOBAL WARMING! (RIGHT ON!)