So you think the scientists who form your 'scientific consensus' have a thorough understanding of how Terra's climate operates and are all qualified planetologists.
Being that planetology is a field in astronomy, I think that very few climate scientists will be qualified planetologists.
So now what you're saying is that climate scientists know very little about planetary environments.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Now, I do see that the methods of climate scientists are sound, and that they display honesty and integrity. And that unlike the deniers, they have no political axe to grind. And that they're taking a pay cut by not shilling for deniers. Follow the money. It's flowing _away_ from the reputable scientists, which gives them more credibility.
Now how can their methods be sound if they don't know how a planetary environment operates?
*****CHUCKLE*****
I can also see that the whole planet shares that judgement. Being that I'm not insanely narcissistic, I don't think I'm a special snowflake who is more brilliant than the rest of the planet. If the whole world agrees on something, it's probably for a good reason. If I was going to declare the whole world to be wrong, I'd make sure I had rock solid evidence first. I certainly wouldn't just say "The world has to be wrong, because my fringe political cult believes it.", as deniers do.
So now the whole world supports your vision of global warming also.
How rock solid is this whole world consensus of yours?
*****CHUCKLE*****
They're discounted because their methods are bad. Most of them don't actually do any science, and instead just shake their tiny fists at the sky.While other scientists who've reviewed the data and disagree are to be discounted because they aren't working in the AGW field...
So now any scientist that doesn't work in the 'global warming' field does shoddy science and they don't know what they're doing in your opinion.
*****CHUCKLE*****
The ones who try science make obvious basic errors, or they fudge things. Hence, they have little credibility.
You mean like climate scientists caught in the WikiLeaks releases who fudge the numbers to match their global warming models right?
*****CHUCKLE*****
Isn't it funny how the only scientists polled for your 'scientific consensus' work in the field of AGW I'm sure there's no bias there.
Bias towards the truth, yes. Why would you poll people with no knowledge in the field?
So you think that anyone that doesn't work in the field is unknowledgeable about the field and the science behind it and can't keep up because they're all stupid. While you on the other hand are all knowledgeable and a resident expert who can tell us all about how solar input, air streams, ocean currents, global cloud coverage, land masses, volcanic activity, planetary eccentricity, planetary magnetic fields, ocean salinity, atmospheric composition, vegetation coverage, plankton blooms, etc, etc, etc,... all interact to provide us a overall picture of our planetary climate.
I'm so glad we have someone like you to tell us all how stupid we all are...
*****CHUCKLE*****
Last edited: