You don't say...lol

[Confounding]

one of us is educated, and has a grasp on the science...the other is not

 

[Confounding]

Funny you turn to flacalten.

Don't worry he won't get involved.

he is unsure how his home depot infrared thermometer works...

Probably because installing and operating Home Depot merchandise is not his profession.

 

[westwall]

Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...

The most educated people that actually do real career work with the subject matter are the ones most qualified to discuss it.

If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.

That was the theory until the 1960's. Sure you want to hitch your wagon to people who's livelihood is dependent on the continuation of the fraud?

That's why the appeal to authority logical fallacy is in play here. So long as they have a vested interest to lie, they will do so.

 

[Confounding]

If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.

Who are the people bringing new and groundbreaking information to the table to dispute the AGW consensus? I would like to see the names of and learn more about the opinions of these climate scientists.

 

[baileyn45]

Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?

I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.

Therein lies the issue. Where is the consensus? Upon what is the general agreement? CO2 must have an impact on climate? Yes everyone agrees. CO2 is the main driver of climate> Not so much. We're all going to die? Not so much.

If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.

Who are the people bringing new and groundbreaking information to the table to dispute the AGW consensus? I would like to see the names of and learn more about the opinions of these climate scientists.

You don't seem to understand science. The onus is upon those that make claims. According to the global warming community, the Earth is warming, man made emissions are to blame and the results will be catastrophic.

There are 3 statements. Prove any one.

You show me the "science" that shows that the Earth is warmer now in 2019 than it was in the year 1000 or 1936. Show me.

Man made emissions are the primary driver of climate. Prove it. Show me the proof. At least try.

2 deg of warming will be catastrophic. Based on what?

 

[Confounding]

According to the global warming community, the Earth is warming,

True.

man made emissions are to blame

I think it's more accurate to say according to the "global warming community" or climate scientists all over the world as I like to call them, man made emissions are contributing to the warming to some extent. How much of an impact they have is not settled, and there's much to be learned by the same scientists you people call liars and frauds.

 

[westwall]

If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.

Who are the people bringing new and groundbreaking information to the table to dispute the AGW consensus? I would like to see the names of and learn more about the opinions of these climate scientists.

The people who have exposed the gross bias in the computer models. The whistle blowers who exposed the rampant fraud in the peer review process, and the statisticians who have blown the latest "studies" out of the water.

 

[daveman]

See my post above Bullwinkle

It's good to see you do more than try to undermine my defense of science and scientists.

Jim Hansen??? Is that YOU??? We've missed your fairy tales buddy

You agreed earlier when I stated that I'm not an alarmist. Why not respond to the rest of my post?

You, of all people, have no business criticizing others for not responding.

 

[daveman]

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

THIS ONE STATEMENT proves you know nothing about science.

Like debate, it's up to the people making the claim to prove their claim.

Climate "science" has not done so.

 

[daveman]

Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...

The most educated people that actually do real career work with the subject matter are the ones most qualified to discuss it.

The High Priests of your cult certainly do appreciate your passionate ass-licking.

Maybe someday you'll develop some self-respect.

 

[daveman]

Take some time to email a few of them

Do you believe that most of them would say AGW is a hoax with no evidence to support it? I am asking you a clear question. Are you capable of giving a clear answer?

You damn dishonest piece of shit. You haven't answered a question in this whole thread.

 

[daveman]

as if they had some special scientific knowledge that only they were capable of understanding.

You'd have that knowledge too if you were a practicing climate scientist.

"You'd know the secrets of the Inner Temple if you were a member of the cult."

Climate science isn't science...it's Scientology.

 

[daveman]

I already had it back when...

Bullshit.

You are not a practicing climate scientist. A few articles you read and graphs that you saw cannot bridge the gap between you and people that study this for a living.

Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.

 

[Confounding]

Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.

I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.

 

[daveman]

one of us is educated, and has a grasp on the science...the other is not

You're not a scientist. Neither are you educated.

You're a Useful Idiot, repeating what you're told.

 

[daveman]

Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.

I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.

You have none of the former, and no justification for the latter. Yet, oddly, you claim the authority to discard the opinions of working scientists.

 

[westwall]

Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.

I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.

And yet, here you are projecting yet again. You have been challenged to bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument to refute our assertions.

You have failed to do so.

Why?

 

[daveman]

Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.

I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.

And yet, here you are projecting yet again. You have been challenged to bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument to refute our assertions.

You have failed to do so.

Why?

Well, in his defense, I must say it's because there are none.

 

[Confounding]

bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument

That's not my job. Why are you making it my responsibility to educate you?

Anyway the argument I've presented is enough. The vast majority of practicing climate scientists disagree with your assertions. Is it possible you're missing some knowledge and context compared to somebody on the frontier of climate research?

 

[westwall]

bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument

That's not my job. Why are you making it my responsibility to educate you?

Anyway the argument I've presented is enough. The vast majority of practicing climate scientists disagree with your assertions. Is it possible you're missing some knowledge and context compared to somebody that studies the climate professionally?

Ahhh, sonny boy, you couldn't educate my 13 year old daughter, much less me. If you have nothing more than vague generalities and insults then you are correct. You are indeed a troll and no further notice need be taken of you.

You are dismissed.