Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,879
- 60,287
- 2,645
I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.
You clearly do not, or you would be in the scientific community, publishing your denier garbage. Give me a break.
Well you'd be wrong. I actually HAVE applied my work in fields very much related to Climate. I headed a group that produced 2nd gen multi-spectral image analysis for Earth Resource satellites. Both hardware and algorithm design and verification. When your specialty is image/signal processing, that art is applicable to virtually EVERY field of science. I've worked on everything from analyzing Dolphin speech for SeaWorld/Navy to cracking communication channels for the intelligence community. Have worked in over a DOZEN scientific disciplines. And not afraid to learn the lingo and the science for them. I've attended HUNDREDS of cardiac cath procedures to understand what the radiologist/cardiologist is looking for. Just finished a "bionic" arm/leg post surgical frame that automatically adjusts as the bones mend and grow.
I consider that -- FAR more qualified and sciency than say a frog biologist who gets to publish on GW effect on frogs and is considered "a climate scientist"..
That's a lot of pretty bloviating and all (would you like to hear my life story now? zzzzzzzzz), but it doesn't seem to actually be translating into science. I promise you that you would have NO problem getting yourself a little grant and pocket money to publish science that you think undermines the accepted theories. As it turns out, the energy industry has a lot of money. Yet, strangely, they seem more fond of disseminating confusing misinformation than of funding any science. Maybe they are just waiting for a guy like you?