I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....
Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.
It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.
If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?
Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.
