You don't say...lol

[Billy_Bob]

None of the people here are actually qualified to discuss the science

YOU are not qualified.. Some of the rest of us are even though we disagree on points.. You however refuse to deal with the basics of the hypothesis or answer any questions...

 

[Confounding]

YOU are not qualified.

The climate scientists are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

examine the evidence

I leave that to scientists that have made it their career.

If you know so much then say it.

I am saying it, but you're too stubborn and too ignorant.

Your ignorance precedes you.. Yet you have the gall to call others ignorant when you have shown a total ignorance of the subject.. Is the bull ring in your nose securely set for your handlers?

 

[Billy_Bob]

YOU are not qualified.

The climate scientists are.

I am one with several degrees.... You have shown total ignorance and political talking points.. Troll..

 

[Confounding]

your handlers?

You should try listening to people that know more than you do more often. You'll learn faster.

 

[Confounding]

I am one with several degrees

Even if that's true, which I highly doubt, it's irrelevant. You are one person.

 

[Billy_Bob]

your handlers?

You should try listening to people that know more than you do more often. You'll learn faster.

I am one with several degrees

Even if that's true, which I highly doubt, it's irrelevant. You are one person.

I am one with several degrees....

So what's a typical day at work like for you?

I see irrelevant questions and bull shit shoveling is your job...

 

[westwall]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other when YOU have no real interest in ANY of the scientific details of this topic... Why explain nuances to some guy with a mission who won't answer basic questions about the ACTUAL science??

None of the people here are actually qualified to discuss the science because on this topic in particular they're not as educated as real climate scientists, the people at the forefront of what we understand. That's fine, but I just want to remind everybody that they're ignorant compared to the people being calling liars and frauds. The fact that they think an obvious bullshit conspiracy would float in science proves just how ignorant they are. I noticed you still won't tell me that climate scientists aren't using evidence to support their claims, Mr. Scientist.

Like I said before, I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class, they can't teach any graduate level geology.

That is called a fact.

They're not special. Far from it.

 

[SSDD]

None of the people here are actually qualified to discuss the science because on this topic in particular they're not as educated as real climate scientists, the people at the forefront of what we understand.

Exactly what special education and qualifications do you think a "real" climate scientist has that makes that make their opinion more valid than anyone elses? Be specific.

 

[SSDD]

examine the evidence

I leave that to scientists that have made it their career.

So where is it? Do you think they have a secret warehouse of "evidence" somewhere? The evidence certainly isn't out for view by the public and millions upon millions have been spent by certain individuals to keep their research and methods out of the public eye...because if it ever is exposed to actual review, it will be a career ending situation..

 

[SSDD]

YOU are not qualified.

The climate scientists are.

Again...what special education and qualifications do you believe climate scientists to have? Be specific.

 

[SSDD]

I am one with several degrees

Even if that's true, which I highly doubt, it's irrelevant. You are one person.

You clearly don't grasp science at all. In science, consensus is irrelevant...what everyone in a whole field of science thinks is irrelevant...in science, only one individual needs to be correct.

Example: Daniel Shechtman..a mere engineer and materials scientist....way back in 1982, he stated that he had discovered a substance that was so controversial that he was actually asked to resign from his position at the National Institute of Standards and Technology lab.

His discovery went directly against the grain of the consensus and broke the golden rule of chemical symmetry. Everyone at the time "KNEW" that...ALL crystals had an infinitely repeating base pattern. Daniel claimed to have discovered a crystal...a quasi crystal in which the atoms were arranged in a pattern that was orderly but never repeated itself.

No less than double Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling publicly called him a quasi scientist...Pauling told anyone who would listen that Schectman had made a grave mistake and he proposed his own explanations for what Schectman discovered in terms that went along with what everyone "KNEW"...it took years for him to get his discovery published in a scientific journal...once his work was published, his working group called him a disgrace and asked him to leave...

He spent 27 years as a scientific outcast because he went against the consensus and proposed something that everyone, including the giants in the field "KNEW" could not exist...

That is till he finally received a Nobel Prize for his discovery of quasi crystals.

Consensus means exactly jack...If you believe in consensus, the only thing that means is that you have given up questioning everything, all the time...which is what science is supposed to be all about.

 

[SSDD]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other

If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.

The thing is, that they don't deserve, or merit any defense at all...they are doing nothing more than pushing a political alarmist agenda.

Here is a perfect example of the degree of dishonesty they are engaging in..This is the typical temperature chart you see from climate science covering the past century.. Even if we assume that it is accurate which I question, it's format is designed for one purpose..and one purpose only. It is designed to create a sense of unease, and urgency regarding the global temperature. The scaling, and the fact that the temperature is shown in terms of anomaly, rather than actual degrees of temperature serves no purpose other than to create anxiety.

View attachment 274514

The graph below describes the same temperature change as the one above, but the sole purpose of the one below is to impart information about the amount and rate that the temperature has changed since 1900. Clearly this graph would not create a sense of anxiety, or alarm in anyone even though it shows the same information.

The graph above.....the graph below. Both show the same information...one is designed specifically to create a sense of urgency and alarm..one is designed to impart scientific information...One is patently dishonest in its intent...can you guess which one that might be?

Ah.. The science of perverting graphs.. I know it well... Problem is -- folks who READ graphs don't fall for the camouflage like National Review does....

National review pointed out the alarmist nature of the graphs coming out of climate science...they weren't "fooled" by anything...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

your handlers?

You should try listening to people that know more than you do more often. You'll learn faster.

I am one with several degrees

Even if that's true, which I highly doubt, it's irrelevant. You are one person.

I am one with several degrees....

So what's a typical day at work like for you?

I see irrelevant questions and bull shit shoveling is your job...

View attachment 274614

Exactly and that's all the nitwit is doing

 

[strollingbones]

Trump's gonna make it great again....lol

 

[Confounding]

I see irrelevant questions and bull shit shoveling is your job...

What you actually do as a "scientist" is very relevant when you're touting your credentials and using them to claim you're equal to the people you're calling liars. When is the last time you did scientific work that expanded our understanding?

 

[Confounding]

Again...what special education and qualifications do you believe climate scientists to have? Be specific.

They are the most educated people on this topic and they have turned understanding it into their careers. Helping humanity understand the climate better is what a climate scientist does. They are the ones discovering new information.

Are you people seriously so arrogant that you'd compare your knowledge to somebody that is actively pushing the boundaries of what we know? Get real. If you're not currently doing real work in climate science you're kind of irrelevant compared to people that are.

 

[Confounding]

Like I said before, I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class

When is the last time you did work that helped push the boundaries of what humanity understands about the climate?

 

[Confounding]

Do you think they have a secret warehouse of "evidence" somewhere?

They go to work and do what climate scientists do, which is expand our understanding of the climate. That is what they've dedicated their lives to. You do not do that. You're just some dude running your mouth on the internet. Your belief that you've discovered an "error cascade" that they're incapable of seeing is absurd.

 

[Confounding]

In science, consensus is irrelevant...what everyone in a whole field of science thinks is irrelevant

You're suggesting that your understanding is greater than the people who represent an entire field of science. These are the people that are guiding humanity in learning more. I'm not saying they get everything right the first time and that a consensus makes their views above question. I've explained that to you a dozen times, but you don't debate in good faith.