Agenda Driven Research is the Problem.... Great Barrier Reef Recovered 80%

[SSDD]

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY

Do you not understand why climate scientists the world over are the authority when it comes to our current understanding of the climate?

As a climate scientist, your appeal to them outs you as a political hack who has no understanding of the hypothesis nor do you understand why it has failed. Anyone who has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure, as these people have, are not authorities you should be claiming are experts.

Dead on...any group of "scientists" who have literally littered the scientific landscape for 3 decades with predictive failures can't be said to be an authority on anything except perhaps colossal failure.

 

[Confounding]

Climatologists are not the authority

Scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding the climate are indeed the authority when it comes to understanding the climate. Nobody knows more. Nobody has more experience and context behind their views. It doesn't make their views infallible, but it does make them something that should be respected and considered.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climatologists are not the authority

Scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding the climate are indeed the authority when it comes to understanding the climate. Nobody knows more. Nobody has more experience and context behind their view.

You are either totally ignorant or an intentional fool...

 

[Confounding]

You are either totally ignorant or an intentional fool...

You and a few other barely literate clowns are claiming that your views regarding the climate are comparable to the views of the vast majority of climate scientists all over the planet. As if you nobodies have stumbled upon some crucial detail that the most qualified and educated people all over the planet are either unaware of or refuse to face. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and it's that arrogance that will keep you ignorant forever.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are either totally ignorant or an intentional fool...

You and a few other barely literate clowns are claiming that your views regarding the climate are comparable to the views of the vast majority of climate scientists all over the planet. As if you nobodies have stumbled upon some crucial detail that the most qualified and educated people all over the planet are either unaware of or refuse to face. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and it's that arrogance they will keep you ignorant forever.

You do not know who I am or what my experience is. Your making wild ass assumptions, presenting no facts, and generally illiterate on the subject your pontificating about.

Tell me, what is the basic AGW hypothesis. Prove me wrong.. I'll wait..

 

[Confounding]

You do not know who I am or what my experience

I tried to get you to elaborate on what work you do as a "climate scientist" but my post was deleted for being off-topic.

Your making wild ass assumptions, presenting no facts, and generally illiterate on the subject your pontificating about.

You're so well-written after all. How could I doubt your claimed credentials?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ah... Another deflection. No surprise there. Here is some help for you Confounding;

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Dr David Evans spells it out in plain English.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You do not know who I am or what my experience

I tried to get you to elaborate on what work you do as a "climate scientist" but my post was deleted for being off-topic.

Your making wild ass assumptions, presenting no facts, and generally illiterate on the subject your pontificating about.

You're so well-written after all. How could I doubt your claimed credentials?

LOL...

All you have is deflection.... Now you are the grammar police to..

Why don't you concentrate on the science and quit deflecting... I am still waiting for you to tell me what the basic premise of AGW is....

 

[Confounding]

I am still waiting for you to tell me what the basic premise of AGW is....

I'd like you to elaborate on what it is you do as a "climate scientist." Will you?

Now you are the grammar police to..

I wouldn't normally point out your constant grammatical errors. It's just strange to see that from somebody that's an educated scientist.

Sorry Billy_Bob the scientist. I'm just not buying it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am still waiting for you to tell me what the basic premise of AGW is....

I'd like you to elaborate on what it is you do as a "climate scientist." Will you?

Now you are the grammar police to..

I wouldn't normally point out your constant grammatical errors. It's just strange to see that from somebody that's an educated scientist.

Sorry Billy_Bob the scientist. I'm just not buying it.

Deflection after deflection ....

This is hilarious... You do not believe me because I do not conform to your preconceived beliefs....

You avoid, at all costs, telling us what the basic premise of AGW is. You then appeal to authorities who have had predictive failure after predictive failure showing their understanding of the system is grossly inadequate and their modeling failed. And you refuse to look at the science to see why..

I believe we are done here as you have adequately outed yourself as a useful idiot and a hack/troll.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Topic is verifying science done by anyone..

This is how open and accountable science is done. Dr Michael Mann has been hiding his work for decades. We have extrapolated his data and shown the hockey stick a fraud of the worst kind, but can not confirm his deceptions as he will not openly allow review and replication of his works. The whole AGW myth is based on Mann's work, which has been shown fraudulent and without merit.

Now why would a scientist keep his work from being replicated, using his own data sets, to verify his conclusions? There are only two reasons and they are basic scientific practice failure and/or intentional deception.. Until Mann is forced to supply his work we wont know for sure which it is.

 

[SSDD]

Climatologists are not the authority

Scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding the climate are indeed the authority when it comes to understanding the climate. Nobody knows more. Nobody has more experience and context behind their views. It doesn't make their views infallible, but it does make them something that should be respected and considered.

The sheer number of predictive failures is prima facie evidence that they do not understand the climate...and the people who are predicting the failures of their hypothesis and stating in advance why their hypothesis is going to fail, and in what way clearly know more about the climate than they.

 

[SSDD]

You are either totally ignorant or an intentional fool...

You and a few other barely literate clowns are claiming that your views regarding the climate are comparable to the views of the vast majority of climate scientists all over the planet. As if you nobodies have stumbled upon some crucial detail that the most qualified and educated people all over the planet are either unaware of or refuse to face. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and it's that arrogance they will keep you ignorant forever.

Do you have any understanding of exactly how fabulously climate models have failed? Do you grasp that climate models are the "understanding" that climatologists have of the climate incarnate? Do you understand that they have experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure for decades? Can you not understand that those predictive failures are because they have it all wrong and aren't willing to revamp their failed hypothesis in an effort to come up with one that doesn't routinely experience predictive failures?

 

[SSDD]

You are either totally ignorant or an intentional fool...

You and a few other barely literate clowns are claiming that your views regarding the climate are comparable to the views of the vast majority of climate scientists all over the planet. As if you nobodies have stumbled upon some crucial detail that the most qualified and educated people all over the planet are either unaware of or refuse to face. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and it's that arrogance they will keep you ignorant forever.

You do not know who I am or what my experience is. Your making wild ass assumptions, presenting no facts, and generally illiterate on the subject your pontificating about.

Tell me, what is the basic AGW hypothesis. Prove me wrong.. I'll wait..

His respect for the "expertise" of climatologists is yet another wild assed act of faith..

 

[SSDD]

You do not know who I am or what my experience

I tried to get you to elaborate on what work you do as a "climate scientist" but my post was deleted for being off-topic.

Your making wild ass assumptions, presenting no facts, and generally illiterate on the subject your pontificating about.

You're so well-written after all. How could I doubt your claimed credentials?

Censorship gone wild around here lately...it is getting as bad as at skeptical science...if you don't discuss stay within "someone's idea of proper conversation, you get deleted or the thread gets shut down...

 

[SSDD]

Ah... Another deflection. No surprise there. Here is some help for you Confounding;

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Dr David Evans spells it out in plain English.

You don't expect him to actually look at any of that heresy do you?

 

[SSDD]

I am still waiting for you to tell me what the basic premise of AGW is....

I'd like you to elaborate on what it is you do as a "climate scientist." Will you?

Now you are the grammar police to..

I wouldn't normally point out your constant grammatical errors. It's just strange to see that from somebody that's an educated scientist.

Sorry Billy_Bob the scientist. I'm just not buying it.

You know what else post graduate students do? They spend a great deal of time spell checking and correcting grammar and math errors in papers their professors are writing....you seem to be completely ignorant about what goes on in those ivory towers you revere so much.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ah... Another deflection. No surprise there. Here is some help for you Confounding;

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Dr David Evans spells it out in plain English.

You don't expect him to actually look at any of that heresy do you?

The basic premise is spelled out in the first two paragraphs. I assumed he was intelligent enough to read that far.. This was obviously an error on my part..

 

[SSDD]

The Topic is verifying science done by anyone..

This is how open and accountable science is done. Dr Michael Mann has been hiding his work for decades. We have extrapolated his data and shown the hockey stick a fraud of the worst kind, but can not confirm his deceptions as he will not openly allow review and replication of his works. The whole AGW myth is based on Mann's work, which has been shown fraudulent and without merit.

Now why would a scientist keep his work from being replicated, using his own data sets, to verify his conclusions? There are only two reasons and they are basic scientific practice failure and/or intentional deception.. Until Mann is forced to supply his work we wont know for sure which it is.

When he finally does have to surrender it, he will claim that it is lost...to surrender it to the scrutiny of actual scientists would end his career.

 

[Confounding]

you seem to be completely ignorant about what goes on in those ivory towers you revere so much.

And you know all about it, right?