The next time some idiot tells you, "But the real science says....."

[ReinyDays]

No, I have a PhD from Caltech. Science matters. The abuse and falsification of science should be a crime. Put another way, the climatologists like to claim that like the High priests of old, only they understand what they are talking about. However, a PhD climatologist is only qualified to teach up to about third year geology classes. That's it. Once you get to fourth year, and forget graduate level courses, they are completely out of their depth. On th other hand i am qualified to teach ANY climatology course that exists on the planet.

Link to your thesis please ...

The UCLA degree program in Climatology only requires two years of calculus when I checked a few years ago ... so, yeah, a climatologist would be lost in Junior level geology ... the school I went to was smallish so the dynamic meteorology and geology students were lumped together in the UD math classes ... the climatology students were sent over for another year of LD statistics ... so not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree if you get my drift ...

I wasn't aware that geology deleved into the thermodynamic complexities of water's constant change-in-state in the atmosphere ... no? ... neither does climatology ...

How would you feel if I ridiculed geologist because gemology is non-rigid? ...

 

[westwall]

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

Your argument was these studies aren't repeatable ... are you saying the distribution curves aren't accurate? ... apparently you don't know much about computational fluid mechanics ... which is very very strange coming from a geologist ...
We're in CT land if you think the raw data has been tampered with ... show me where this has occurred ... remember, the IPCC reports are not scientific papers and have not passed through the peer-review process ... they are not "scientific literature" ... just the UN's opinion ...one of the leaders of the AGW movement claimingHaw haw haw haw ... a leader of the politics of AGW ... sorry, the science is still led by George Stokes ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

The AGW movement is mainly lead by Trenberth, Mann, and Jones. And yes, they have been falsifying their work for a very, very long time....This from 1983

CARBON MONOXIDE STUDY IS FLAWED, E.P.A. IS TOLDThe peer review report, released today, said: ''We could not resolve the issue of possible falsification of data. However, we had considerable concern about the validity of the results reported. Raw data were lost or discarded, adquate records were not maintained, available data were of poor quality, quality control nonexistent or inadequate, and finally there appeared to be some differences of opinion as to patient....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/...column&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/...column&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured

The groups expressed concern that Dr. Aronow's research was not ''double blind.'' In a double blind experiment, neither the subjects being examined nor those carrying out the tests are aware whether the suspect gas, in this case, carbon monoxide, or some other gas is being used to test effects."

 

[westwall]

I have been retired for 20 years. That doesn't suddenly make me non current.

It kinda does. If you have something that legitimately throws things into question then you should get off this forum and go be famous.

What makes you think I am not? And I am already famous. That's why I keep my identity anonymous here. Look up LANDSAT 1, I am in the pile of scientists who built that.

 

[Confounding]

What makes you think I am not? And I am already famous. That's why I keep my identity anonymous here. Look up LANDSAT 1, I am in the pile of scientists who built that.

If you were relevant and doing work that throws AGW into question I would have heard of you.

 

[Confounding]

What makes you think I am not? And I am already famous. That's why I keep my identity anonymous here. Look up LANDSAT 1, I am in the pile of scientists who built that.

There's a reason why leading climate scientists don't care about your view and it's very likely not the reason you think it is.

 

[westwall]

No, I have a PhD from Caltech. Science matters. The abuse and falsification of science should be a crime. Put another way, the climatologists like to claim that like the High priests of old, only they understand what they are talking about. However, a PhD climatologist is only qualified to teach up to about third year geology classes. That's it. Once you get to fourth year, and forget graduate level courses, they are completely out of their depth. On th other hand i am qualified to teach ANY climatology course that exists on the planet.

Link to your thesis please ...

The UCLA degree program in Climatology only requires two years of calculus when I checked a few years ago ... so, yeah, a climatologist would be lost in Junior level geology ... the school I went to was smallish so the dynamic meteorology and geology students were lumped together in the UD math classes ... the climatology students were sent over for another year of LD statistics ... so not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree if you get my drift ...

I wasn't aware that geology deleved into the thermodynamic complexities of water's constant change-in-state in the atmosphere ... no? ... neither does climatology ...

How would you feel if I ridiculed geologist because gemology is non-rigid? ...

Yeah, no, You can find me in the pile of scientists who built LANDSAT 1. That's as much of my identity as I will release to you people.

 

[westwall]

What makes you think I am not? And I am already famous. That's why I keep my identity anonymous here. Look up LANDSAT 1, I am in the pile of scientists who built that.

If you were relevant and doing work that throws AGW into question I would have heard of you.

What relevant work are the AGW proponents doing? Mann just lost a huge lawsuit against my friend Dr. Tim Ball. Other than that he keeps trotting out his proven false hockey stick nonsense.

 

[ReinyDays]

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

Your argument was these studies aren't repeatable ... are you saying the distribution curves aren't accurate? ... apparently you don't know much about computational fluid mechanics ... which is very very strange coming from a geologist ...
We're in CT land if you think the raw data has been tampered with ... show me where this has occurred ... remember, the IPCC reports are not scientific papers and have not passed through the peer-review process ... they are not "scientific literature" ... just the UN's opinion ...one of the leaders of the AGW movement claimingHaw haw haw haw ... a leader of the politics of AGW ... sorry, the science is still led by George Stokes ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

The AGW movement is mainly lead by Trenberth, Mann, and Jones. And yes, they have been falsifying their work for a very, very long time....This from 1983

CARBON MONOXIDE STUDY IS FLAWED, E.P.A. IS TOLDThe peer review report, released today, said: ''We could not resolve the issue of possible falsification of data. However, we had considerable concern about the validity of the results reported. Raw data were lost or discarded, adquate records were not maintained, available data were of poor quality, quality control nonexistent or inadequate, and finally there appeared to be some differences of opinion as to patient....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/europe/ireland-pub-viral-photo.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=528557626&impression_id=184bb9f0-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=0&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/sports/football/tom-brady-tampa-bay-buccaneers.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=865746584&impression_id=184bb9f1-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=1&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured

The groups expressed concern that Dr. Aronow's research was not ''double blind.'' In a double blind experiment, neither the subjects being examined nor those carrying out the tests are aware whether the suspect gas, in this case, carbon monoxide, or some other gas is being used to test effects."

Wow ... just wow ...

Please define this "AGW movement" ... AFAIK this is a cadet branch of the Democrat political party ... and Democrats lie through their teeth ...

I'm not making the connection here ... all of climatology is pseudo-science because three charlatans profiteered on America's need to be afraid ... not one single paper on climatology is repeatable because of these three misfits ... those are bold claims you made, and three "DemoNazis" isn't enough to back them up ...

Carbon monoxide? ...

Thank you for the links to the latest news on Ireland's pandemic rules, and glad to hear Tom Brady is settling in there with the Buc's ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Great work on LANDSAT ... I was a kid when the first images came out ... National Geographic if I remember correctly ... good thing you were there making sure folks had fresh coffee percolated ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

 

[Wyatt earp]

What makes you think I am not? And I am already famous. That's why I keep my identity anonymous here. Look up LANDSAT 1, I am in the pile of scientists who built that.

If you were relevant and doing work that throws AGW into question I would have heard of you.

I have been reading westwalls posts for like 8 years , yup he is the real deal

 

[westwall]

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

Your argument was these studies aren't repeatable ... are you saying the distribution curves aren't accurate? ... apparently you don't know much about computational fluid mechanics ... which is very very strange coming from a geologist ...
We're in CT land if you think the raw data has been tampered with ... show me where this has occurred ... remember, the IPCC reports are not scientific papers and have not passed through the peer-review process ... they are not "scientific literature" ... just the UN's opinion ...one of the leaders of the AGW movement claimingHaw haw haw haw ... a leader of the politics of AGW ... sorry, the science is still led by George Stokes ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

The AGW movement is mainly lead by Trenberth, Mann, and Jones. And yes, they have been falsifying their work for a very, very long time....This from 1983

CARBON MONOXIDE STUDY IS FLAWED, E.P.A. IS TOLDThe peer review report, released today, said: ''We could not resolve the issue of possible falsification of data. However, we had considerable concern about the validity of the results reported. Raw data were lost or discarded, adquate records were not maintained, available data were of poor quality, quality control nonexistent or inadequate, and finally there appeared to be some differences of opinion as to patient....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/europe/ireland-pub-viral-photo.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=528557626&impression_id=184bb9f0-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=0&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/sports/football/tom-brady-tampa-bay-buccaneers.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=865746584&impression_id=184bb9f1-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=1&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured

The groups expressed concern that Dr. Aronow's research was not ''double blind.'' In a double blind experiment, neither the subjects being examined nor those carrying out the tests are aware whether the suspect gas, in this case, carbon monoxide, or some other gas is being used to test effects."

Wow ... just wow ...

Please define this "AGW movement" ... AFAIK this is a cadet branch of the Democrat political party ... and Democrats lie through their teeth ...

I'm not making the connection here ... all of climatology is pseudo-science because three charlatans profiteered on America's need to be afraid ... not one single paper on climatology is repeatable because of these three misfits ... those are bold claims you made, and three "DemoNazis" isn't enough to back them up ...

Carbon monoxide? ...

Thank you for the links to the latest news on Ireland's pandemic rules, and glad to hear Tom Brady is settling in there with the Buc's ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Great work on LANDSAT ... I was a kid when the first images came out ... National Geographic if I remember correctly ... good thing you were there making sure folks had fresh coffee percolated ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Actually, there was more tea drunk than coffee, that and some good scotch. The AGW "movement" is just that. An unsubstantiated claim that mankind is driving the temperature of the globe. But you already know that, you just like playing dumb, or are you really dumb? Doesn't matter. The AGW theory has been shown through empirical data to be wrong.

Instead of moving on the climatologists have now engaged in outright scientific fraud. Dr. Balls victory over mann is an example of the wheels coming off the AGW fraud.

I went back to 1983 because it shows just how long this silliness has been going on. But hey, I am glad you are at least conversant with some science. it's a shame you don't know much about it though.

 

[ReinyDays]

What relevant work are the AGW proponents doing? Mann just lost a huge lawsuit against my friend Dr. Tim Ball. Other than that he keeps trotting out his proven false hockey stick nonsense.

Wait wait wait wait ...

Mann was ratted out because nobody could duplicate his results ... which could only happen where repeatably was required ... this example fully refutes your claim climatology is pseudo-science ... thank you ...

Yes ... another example of the problems with our current system ... Mann should have withdrawn his paper, most scientists would ... but he cannot be compelled to ...

 

[westwall]

What relevant work are the AGW proponents doing? Mann just lost a huge lawsuit against my friend Dr. Tim Ball. Other than that he keeps trotting out his proven false hockey stick nonsense.

Wait wait wait wait ...

Mann was ratted out because nobody could duplicate his results ... which could only happen where repeatably was required ... this example fully refutes your claim climatology is pseudo-science ... thank you ...

Yes ... another example of the problems with our current system ... Mann should have withdrawn his paper, most scientists would ... but he cannot be compelled to ...

Then why do supposed "legit" climatologists still refer to it? Dr. Ball asserted that Mann was a fraud. Mann sued Dr. Ball for having the temerity to question him. Mann lost. And lost big. And yet, even with all of his lies exposed the climatology community still refers to him.


Why is that?

My contention is they are not legitimate.

 

[ReinyDays]

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

Your argument was these studies aren't repeatable ... are you saying the distribution curves aren't accurate? ... apparently you don't know much about computational fluid mechanics ... which is very very strange coming from a geologist ...
We're in CT land if you think the raw data has been tampered with ... show me where this has occurred ... remember, the IPCC reports are not scientific papers and have not passed through the peer-review process ... they are not "scientific literature" ... just the UN's opinion ...one of the leaders of the AGW movement claimingHaw haw haw haw ... a leader of the politics of AGW ... sorry, the science is still led by George Stokes ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

The AGW movement is mainly lead by Trenberth, Mann, and Jones. And yes, they have been falsifying their work for a very, very long time....This from 1983

CARBON MONOXIDE STUDY IS FLAWED, E.P.A. IS TOLDThe peer review report, released today, said: ''We could not resolve the issue of possible falsification of data. However, we had considerable concern about the validity of the results reported. Raw data were lost or discarded, adquate records were not maintained, available data were of poor quality, quality control nonexistent or inadequate, and finally there appeared to be some differences of opinion as to patient....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/europe/ireland-pub-viral-photo.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=528557626&impression_id=184bb9f0-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=0&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/sports/football/tom-brady-tampa-bay-buccaneers.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=865746584&impression_id=184bb9f1-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=1&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured

The groups expressed concern that Dr. Aronow's research was not ''double blind.'' In a double blind experiment, neither the subjects being examined nor those carrying out the tests are aware whether the suspect gas, in this case, carbon monoxide, or some other gas is being used to test effects."

Wow ... just wow ...

Please define this "AGW movement" ... AFAIK this is a cadet branch of the Democrat political party ... and Democrats lie through their teeth ...

I'm not making the connection here ... all of climatology is pseudo-science because three charlatans profiteered on America's need to be afraid ... not one single paper on climatology is repeatable because of these three misfits ... those are bold claims you made, and three "DemoNazis" isn't enough to back them up ...

Carbon monoxide? ...

Thank you for the links to the latest news on Ireland's pandemic rules, and glad to hear Tom Brady is settling in there with the Buc's ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Great work on LANDSAT ... I was a kid when the first images came out ... National Geographic if I remember correctly ... good thing you were there making sure folks had fresh coffee percolated ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Actually, there was more tea drunk than coffee, that and some good scotch. The AGW "movement" is just that. An unsubstantiated claim that mankind is driving the temperature of the globe. But you already know that, you just like playing dumb, or are you really dumb? Doesn't matter. The AGW theory has been shown through empirical data to be wrong.

Instead of moving on the climatologists have now engaged in outright scientific fraud. Dr. Balls victory over mann is an example of the wheels coming off the AGW fraud.

I went back to 1983 because it shows just how long this silliness has been going on. But hey, I am glad you are at least conversant with some science. it's a shame you don't know much about it though.

So, your answer backing up your claim is "your dumb"? ... got it ... thank you again ...

Looks like you're quickly trying change from "AGW movement" to "AGW theory" ... I'm not going to let you ... there's a gap in the math, and we both know how physicists are about that damn math ... so this is conjecture ... if you want to fight the AGW fraud, then stop calling it a theory ...

Climate change is a hoax ... New Speak for global warming ... to make people afraid of something that's harmless, if not beneficial ... I agree with you the AGW movement is losing steam ... thankfully ... and it's not some court case that's causing this ... the data coming in just isn't supporting all these wild claims we've had over the years ... "hypercanes and hockey sticks" ... don't get me started on sea level rise or my nose will start bleeding again ...

I took a class is all ... and have been following the weather all my adult life ... I was completely dismissive of climate change until people started talking about taxes ... and just immediately I saw these claims violate basic laws ... I dismissed hockey sticks out of hand, that's not how energy behaves ... weather patterns are not changing, so far gone it's not worth discussing ...

It's mass hysteria ... think Orson Wells reading War of the Worlds, or asteroid attacks ... or Islamophobia ... folks are uncomfortable being safe ...

 

[westwall]

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

Your argument was these studies aren't repeatable ... are you saying the distribution curves aren't accurate? ... apparently you don't know much about computational fluid mechanics ... which is very very strange coming from a geologist ...
We're in CT land if you think the raw data has been tampered with ... show me where this has occurred ... remember, the IPCC reports are not scientific papers and have not passed through the peer-review process ... they are not "scientific literature" ... just the UN's opinion ...one of the leaders of the AGW movement claimingHaw haw haw haw ... a leader of the politics of AGW ... sorry, the science is still led by George Stokes ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

The AGW movement is mainly lead by Trenberth, Mann, and Jones. And yes, they have been falsifying their work for a very, very long time....This from 1983

CARBON MONOXIDE STUDY IS FLAWED, E.P.A. IS TOLDThe peer review report, released today, said: ''We could not resolve the issue of possible falsification of data. However, we had considerable concern about the validity of the results reported. Raw data were lost or discarded, adquate records were not maintained, available data were of poor quality, quality control nonexistent or inadequate, and finally there appeared to be some differences of opinion as to patient....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/europe/ireland-pub-viral-photo.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=528557626&impression_id=184bb9f0-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=0&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/sports/football/tom-brady-tampa-bay-buccaneers.html?action=click&algo=top_conversion&block=editors_picks_recirc&fellback=true&imp_id=865746584&impression_id=184bb9f1-f2e5-11ea-91cd-ffa2b883d98a&index=1&pgtype=Article®ion=ccolumn&req_id=706161518&surface=home-featured

The groups expressed concern that Dr. Aronow's research was not ''double blind.'' In a double blind experiment, neither the subjects being examined nor those carrying out the tests are aware whether the suspect gas, in this case, carbon monoxide, or some other gas is being used to test effects."

Wow ... just wow ...

Please define this "AGW movement" ... AFAIK this is a cadet branch of the Democrat political party ... and Democrats lie through their teeth ...

I'm not making the connection here ... all of climatology is pseudo-science because three charlatans profiteered on America's need to be afraid ... not one single paper on climatology is repeatable because of these three misfits ... those are bold claims you made, and three "DemoNazis" isn't enough to back them up ...

Carbon monoxide? ...

Thank you for the links to the latest news on Ireland's pandemic rules, and glad to hear Tom Brady is settling in there with the Buc's ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Great work on LANDSAT ... I was a kid when the first images came out ... National Geographic if I remember correctly ... good thing you were there making sure folks had fresh coffee percolated ...

Carbon Monoxide? ...

Actually, there was more tea drunk than coffee, that and some good scotch. The AGW "movement" is just that. An unsubstantiated claim that mankind is driving the temperature of the globe. But you already know that, you just like playing dumb, or are you really dumb? Doesn't matter. The AGW theory has been shown through empirical data to be wrong.

Instead of moving on the climatologists have now engaged in outright scientific fraud. Dr. Balls victory over mann is an example of the wheels coming off the AGW fraud.

I went back to 1983 because it shows just how long this silliness has been going on. But hey, I am glad you are at least conversant with some science. it's a shame you don't know much about it though.

So, your answer backing up your claim is "your dumb"? ... got it ... thank you again ...

Looks like you're quickly trying change from "AGW movement" to "AGW theory" ... I'm not going to let you ... there's a gap in the math, and we both know how physicists are about that damn math ... so this is conjecture ... if you want to fight the AGW fraud, then stop calling it a theory ...

Climate change is a hoax ... New Speak for global warming ... to make people afraid of something that's harmless, if not beneficial ... I agree with you the AGW movement is losing steam ... thankfully ... and it's not some court case that's causing this ... the data coming in just isn't supporting all these wild claims we've had over the years ... "hypercanes and hockey sticks" ... don't get me started on sea level rise or my nose will start bleeding again ...

I took a class is all ... and have been following the weather all my adult life ... I was completely dismissive of climate change until people started talking about taxes ... and just immediately I saw these claims violate basic laws ... I dismissed hockey sticks out of hand, that's not how energy behaves ... weather patterns are not changing, so far gone it's not worth discussing ...

It's mass hysteria ... think Orson Wells reading War of the Worlds, or asteroid attacks ... or Islamophobia ... folks are uncomfortable being safe ...

I guess you don't understand the English language. I very carefully chose my words for a reason. Clearly a reason that escaped you. Or did you intentionally leave out the rest of what I said, I said the AGW theory has been proven false, now it is a movement. See how that works? It was a legit theory for at least 20 years. But then, as empirical data piled up against it, and what experimentation was done showed the failures of the theory, then it became a movement.

See, that's how the climatologists pushing the movement became charlatans. Once their correlation collapsed, they began lying about it. But you have to be honest to admit that. And it is pretty clear you are not honest.

And no, climate change is very real. Mans contribution to it is what we were arguing about. The more we learn, the more we learn that mankind has little to no impact on it.

 

[ReinyDays]

Then why do supposed "legit" climatologists still refer to it? Dr. Ball asserted that Mann was a fraud. Mann sued Dr. Ball for having the temerity to question him. Mann lost. And lost big. And yet, even with all of his lies exposed the climatology community still refers to him.

Where are you listening to "legit" climatologists? ...

All the climatologists interviewed on NPR over the years begged off any grand conclusion ... "Is climate change real?" ... "We don't know yet" ...

Did you know Dr. Ball is a climatologist ...

 

[westwall]

Then why do supposed "legit" climatologists still refer to it? Dr. Ball asserted that Mann was a fraud. Mann sued Dr. Ball for having the temerity to question him. Mann lost. And lost big. And yet, even with all of his lies exposed the climatology community still refers to him.

Where are you listening to "legit" climatologists? ...

All the climatologists interviewed on NPR over the years begged off any grand conclusion ... "Is climate change real?" ... "We don't know yet" ...

Did you know Dr. Ball is a climatologist ...

Yes, he is a friend. Dr. Ball and Pielke, and Curry are all legit. They actually follow the scientific method. Any scientist who doesn't is not legitimate.

See how that works.

 

[ReinyDays]

... I said the AGW theory has been proven false ...

Urban forestry is well demonstrated ... perhaps you should take the time to study the entire theory ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, he is a friend. Dr. Ball and Pielke, and Curry are all legit. They actually follow the scientific method. Any scientist who doesn't is not legitimate.

See how that works.

No ... I don't ...

... Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.

Bell et al are pseudo-scientists ... you said so yourself ... so, no, I don't understand why you're heaping laurel leaves on these guys ...

 

[westwall]

Yes, he is a friend. Dr. Ball and Pielke, and Curry are all legit. They actually follow the scientific method. Any scientist who doesn't is not legitimate.

See how that works.

No ... I don't ...

... Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.

Bell et al are pseudo-scientists ... you said so yourself ... so, no, I don't understand why you're heaping laurel leaves on these guys ...

Ahhh, good little troll. I see all you can muster are childish responses.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ahhh, good little troll. I see all you can muster are childish responses.

Attacking the person ... great logical step there ...

You really did post that ... and like Mann ... you refuse to withdraw it ... I respect your intelligence, just too stubborn for a man of your great age ...