You don't say...lol

[Confounding]

Once again, it doesn't matter.

Alright, well, that's an impasse that can't be overcome. It's been nice having a conversation with you.

 

[SSDD]

AGW skeptics need do some legwork and bring something new to the table that actually disputes the claims of the scientific community.

the fact that they haven't published a single paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our production of greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses is pretty damning...I mean, how does a field of science warn of impending catastrophe if they haven't even produced a paper which covers that basic bit of science?

 

[SSDD]

what makes a climate scientist more qualified

The fact that understanding and working with the subject is their career.

So they have no special knowledge...or training...they are just people who have a degree that is in some field that can associate itself with science and they get hired onto a team that is looking at something to do with climate...

 

[SSDD]

what does that say to you other than it is not possible to introduce anything new, or anything that has not already been thoroughly examined to the discussion?

You're a fool if you actually believe scientists are saying there is nothing left to learn and no room for adjustments to our understanding.

What does the statement "the discussion is over..the science is settled" say to you? Why can't you answer the question?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

I think you need to post up your credentials first. You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion. So..... Post up what gives you this "perceived" right...

 

[Confounding]

You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion.

I am saying the opinions of climate scientists are the most relevant in a discussion about the climate. You disagree?

 

[westwall]

what is it specifically.

They actually do work in the subject being discussed while you run your mouth on the internet.

Who cares. I haven't done pit crew work in over a decade yet here I am at the Monterey Classic Races doing pit work.

According to you that is not possible. Yet here I am because just like mechanical processes don't change, neither does science.


It just so happens that once you have worked on a GT40, you always seem to know your way around them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

what does that say to you other than it is not possible to introduce anything new, or anything that has not already been thoroughly examined to the discussion?

You're a fool if you actually believe scientists are saying there is nothing left to learn and no room for adjustments to our understanding.

What does the statement "the discussion is over..the science is settled" say to you? Why can't you answer the question?

This idiot is himming and hawing all over the damn place. He is no scientist. He is a political hack.

 

[westwall]

You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion.

I am saying the opinions of climate scientists are the most relevant in a discussion about the climate. You disagree?

And that is a ridiculous assertion based on scientific illiteracy .

 

[Confounding]

Who cares.

People that aren't ignorant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion.

I am saying the opinions of climate scientists are the most relevant in a discussion about the climate. You disagree?

I am a practicing Atmospheric Physicist and Meteorologist. I do work every day in this field and I teach classes. You do what now?

 

[westwall]

What conclusion should a thinking person reach

The conclusion a thinking person would reach is that they must be missing something. They don't fully understand the situation. If you weren't an arrogant fool you would realize you are ignorant.

A thinking person would ask why are climatologists falsifying their data?

 

[Confounding]

He is no scientist.

All I have done is defend people that are scientists.

 

[Confounding]

that is a ridiculous assertion

Then we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[SSDD]

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?

I think you need to post up your credentials first. You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion. So..... Post up what gives you this "perceived" right...

He seems to be under the impression that "climate scientist" is a special degree which imparts some special knowledge...He is completely unaware that if you look at the degrees held by people who are recognized as "climate scientists" that the degrees cover every field of science, and engineering and even fields like computer science and modeling...

He doesn't seem to grasp that there isn't anything special about climate science..and that practically anyone with a degree in a hard or soft science or even not a science at all in some cases are qualified to work as climate scientists...

He seems to think that having a climate science degree is akin to being a neurosurgeon where you do 4 years of pre med, 4 years of med school, intern in general surgery for a year, then doing 5 to 7 years as a neurosurgery resident, and then a fellowship if they intent to specialize in a particular area..and then continuing education every year... That is apparently the sort of qualification he believes climate scientists have...

I doubt that he either knows that climate science is a soft science, or knows exactly what that means...

 

[Billy_Bob]

that is a ridiculous assertion

Then we have nothing left to discuss.

All you have been doing is asserting your right and protecting a baseless and indefensible position using a fallacy argument. You haven't discussed squat...

 

[SSDD]

You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion.

I am saying the opinions of climate scientists are the most relevant in a discussion about the climate. You disagree?

Yes....an atmospheric physicist opinion on how energy moves through the atmosphere caries orders of magnitude more weight than the opinion of one with a degree in climatology...

 

[westwall]

Who cares.

People that aren't ignorant.

The ignorant ones are those who argue with non sequitur and logical fallacies.

That would be you.

 

[Confounding]

Yes....an atmospheric physicist opinion on how energy moves through the atmosphere caries orders of magnitude more weight than the opinion of one with a degree in climatology...

Would you say most atmospheric physicists don't believe AGW is happening?

 

[Confounding]

The ignorant ones are those who argue with non sequitur and logical fallacies.

That would be you.

Okay, well I guess we're done here then.