Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[orogenicman]

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

There early 2000's flipped the null hypothesis. No MWP or LIA. Ever since they have had to retreat. Or the warming of 0.2C per decade of warming (and much warmer in most projections) which is not in evidence.

It is not that skeptics deny CO2 influence, CO2 production, or warming in general. It is the wild eyed predictions that fail to happen that we deny.

Just because you guys are finding 'reasons' to claw back your doomsday scenarios that doesn't make you right. We were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you.

Who is "we", Ian? I haven't seen you publish any results. So what is it, exactly, that you are trying to take credit for?

You post up your publications first.

I am not the one making silly claims like " (w)e were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

No real scientist calls a skeptic a "DENIER"

A generation ago you lunatics were railing against Global Cooling, now you've changed to Global Warming, Manmade Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption and expect us to believe that the "Science is settled"

LOLz

 

[Uncensored2008]

Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.

So we can add "discussion" to the long list of concepts you lack comprehension of, along with geology, oceanography, biology, etc....

 

[orogenicman]

Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.

So we can add "discussion" to the long list of concepts you lack comprehension of, along with geology, oceanography, biology, etc....

Bye.

 

[jc456]

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

1. No skeptic is saying debates are settled on forums.

org says:
Except that is exclusively where you deniers (you are NOT scientific skeptics) choose to settle the issue.

2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.

org says:
Experiments have been presented numerous times. For you to declare that they haven't been presented is disingenuous, at best.

3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model. how unscientific is that? I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.

org says:
Wrong, and for you to continue to make this claim despite the numerous times you've been corrected on the matter demonstrates that you aren't interested in discussion.

4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong?

The scientists in the relevant field in question. What? You thought diesel mechanics should have a say in how climate science should be conducted? Bhwhahahahaha!

5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.

Skeptics involved in the science do know more than deniers. And I agree that you deniers need to stop fudging data and misrepresenting the science if you want to be taken seriously.

6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk. how flippin looney is that. grow a pair and get on with the debate.

Next time you need brain surgery, you should hire a floor sweeper, because surely he knows as much about brain surgery as a real brain surgeon. <rolls eyes>
I see you haven't got an answer other than you agree there is a cult.

7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.

Thanks for proving my point.

1. No skeptic is saying debates are settled on forums. Except that is exclusively where you deniers (you are NOT scientific skeptics) choose to settle the issue.
When did I say me? Holy crap.

jc said:
2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.
org says:
Experiments have been presented numerous times. For you to declare that they haven't been presented is disingenuous, at best.
I have yet to see an experiment that proves that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Please, present one that you say was shown. You can search back at least 18 months and find the request over and over again for that one experiment. to date. naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

jc said:
3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model. how unscientific is that? I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.
org says:
Wrong, and for you to continue to make this claim despite the numerous times you've been corrected on the matter demonstrates that you aren't interested in discussion.
Still haven't presented a graph with raw data. Never happened on this forum so not sure what you're smoking, but on here, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

jc said:
4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong?
org says:
The scientists in the relevant field in question. What? You thought diesel mechanics should have a say in how climate science should be conducted? Bhwhahahahaha!
.I see you can't answer that question, calls into question the legitimacy of the statement.

jc said:
5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.
org says:
Skeptics involved in the science do know more than deniers. And I agree that you deniers need to stop fudging data and misrepresenting the science if you want to be taken seriously.
Agree science skeptics are the ones to listen to, you and your deniers need to learn. Valuable data available for you to experience and grow from.

jc said:
6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk. how flippin looney is that. grow a pair and get on with the debate.
org says:
Next time you need brain surgery, you should hire a floor sweeper, because surely he knows as much about brain surgery as a real brain surgeon. <rolls eyes>
I see you liked the good old boys reference, it makes me laugh. typical you don't have an answer. you must agree it is a cult.

jc said:
7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.
org says:
Thanks for proving my point.

Nice to see you agree your side denies. It's a step in the right direction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.

So we can add "discussion" to the long list of concepts you lack comprehension of, along with geology, oceanography, biology, etc....

Bye.

Tissue?

 

[orogenicman]

jc, learn to quote, or I won't bother responding.

 

[Muhammed]

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

That is a logical fallacy on your part. Some appeals to authority are logical fallacies. That does not mean all appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

If the authorities really are the experts in their field, it's not a logical fallacy. It's only a fallacy when you invoke people who don't have actual expertise in the field.

Like Anthony Watt,

He pissed off a lot of idiots and scumbags.

 

[jc456]

jc, learn to quote, or I won't bother responding.

corrected. All you had to do was ask.

 

[rdean]

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

No real scientist calls a skeptic a "DENIER"

A generation ago you lunatics were railing against Global Cooling, now you've changed to Global Warming, Manmade Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption and expect us to believe that the "Science is settled"

LOLz

There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

And there were some laughed at opinion pieces.

Right wingers have been clinging to those ever since. That's the extent of their data. "Debunked".

 

[Wuwei]

There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

And there were some laughed at opinion pieces.

Right wingers have been clinging to those ever since. That's the extent of their data. "Debunked".

We see this so many times. If there is a very newsworthy disclosure people will remember it for a long time. However if that disclosure is debunked, it is not front page headlines, and people will gloss over it and remain ignorant.

 

[IanC]

There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

And there were some laughed at opinion pieces.

Right wingers have been clinging to those ever since. That's the extent of their data. "Debunked".

We see this so many times. If there is a very newsworthy disclosure people will remember it for a long time. However if that disclosure is debunked, it is not front page headlines, and people will gloss over it and remain ignorant.

Absolutely correct. How often have we seen a press release come out for a new climate science paper which makes unsupported claims that are debunked in short order but the revised versions never get reported. Gergis2012, Marcott's recantation, and Steig's various Antacrtic papers come to mind.

 

[PredFan]

The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.

Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.

Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

It was an intentional swipe, dude. You know, like, you are making a pregnant argument.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

Oh really? And of course, you are published on the subject (or any scientific subject), right and so are an expert? No? Well alrighty then. You were saying?

You have used them interchangeably, they mean different things. But you aren't smart enough to know that.

 

[PredFan]

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim.

Right. So you have no expertize to come to any conclusions with regard to global warming, or the scientists who's life's work is the scientific study of the phenomenon. So your only point in being here is to troll and disrupt the discussion. Dude, we already knew this.

Why? I can read, I can learn. I don't need to play baseball to watch and understand it. what the hell is wrong with you? Oh, I forgot, you lost your brain.

He's just not very bright. He thinks he is and his only qualification is that he believes in AGW. He can also cut and paste things other people have published. Not that he actually understands any of it.

 

[sealybobo]

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim. But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living. So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data. Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement? I also absorb others data and use logic. And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is? Please explain that?

How can a person like you ever sit on a jury? Without seeing the person commit murder with your own eyes, how will you decide? By looking at the mountains of evidence that all suggests evolution is real. In fact its pretty much a fact. Even the pope believes. Why dont you?

ever hear of evidence? I'd be more scared to see you on a jury, you couldn't move along with the arguments, you'd choose a position and no matter the data or testimony by others, you'd berate them and call them all liars because they didn't agree with the position you take. Funny thing reality when shown in full bloom. You are a parrott, puppet and what ever other names are out there for someone too stupid to think for themselves and look at the actual evidence or lack of it. Nope I'd be more liked. I was once a foreman and found the defendant not guilty. Not enough evidence. I am consistent as hell brother.

What data or testimony are you using to come to your conclusion?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

No real scientist calls a skeptic a "DENIER"

A generation ago you lunatics were railing against Global Cooling, now you've changed to Global Warming, Manmade Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption and expect us to believe that the "Science is settled"

LOLz

There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

And there were some laughed at opinion pieces.

Right wingers have been clinging to those ever since. That's the extent of their data. "Debunked".

A few years from now you'll be saying the same thing about global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim. And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

We choose not to follow the AGW fools off the cliff.. If the fools are geologist or not make no difference.. I dont follow fools.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

You're such a dishonest fuck, but that's redundant. Consensus is not science. AGW is a Cult