This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[EMH]

Just don't try to convince me that you are better qualified to make climate change determinations than trained experts.

You have already had everything CO2 FRAUD claims completely refuted to your face, and like Schmidlap, it sailed right over your beaked birdbrain, and like an insane Cukoo clock, you keep right on parroting the same completely refuted BS about a bunch of people you really know nothing about except that MSNBC calls them "experts."

 

[BULLDOG]

Hahahahaha.

This is too funny.

Self taught ?

No certification, of need, must be self taught.

 

[Orangecat]

This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.​

 

[BULLDOG]

But you can't tell us what they are saying. You can't explain it

Don't have to. I can know what time it is without knowing how a clock is built.

 

[BULLDOG]

You have already had everything CO2 FRAUD claims completely refuted to your face, and like Schmidlap, it sailed right over your beaked birdbrain, and like an insane Cukoo clock, you keep right on parroting the same completely refuted BS about a bunch of people you really know nothing about except that MSNBC calls them "experts."

That's better than the crazies who have only themselves to say they are expert. Sorry, but I just don't believe every anonymous stranger claiming to be an expert.

 

[EMH]

That's better than the crazies who have only themselves to say they are expert. Sorry, but I just don't believe every anonymous stranger claiming to be an expert.

because you wouldn't pass a junior high science class, and all you are capable of is parroting what MSDNC defines as "the experts," and those are who your hero homO blocked from being indicted in 2010...

Google Search

 

[HikerGuy83]

No certification, of need, must be self taught.

Apparently, that is you. You seem to be without any logic.

I can't tell you how many people I know completed 3 years of college but never finished.

They were very well trained in certain things..by others....and had no certification.

But, I am still wondering just what certification you are looking for and what expertise you reference.

And again, how would you know if they were real.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Don't have to. I can know what time it is without knowing how a clock is built.

I see.

Or how it works apparently.

But you still seem to argue with those who think they do (and have shown pretty good competency in that regard).

You pass judgement on them (often times incorrectly).

Thank you for being so candid about your position.

Bulldog's Position:

1. I don't know how to interpret data or draw conclusions on my own.
2. I know some people who claim to do so. They seem to be in the majority.
3. So I claim their position as my own. I can't really explain it, but I claim it.

.....now up to this point, I have no issues......I certainly would not spend my time talking to you seeing as how you are only going to parrot other's points (that you have no idea if they are right.....but they are credentialed....as if credentialed people never lied......ask the cigarette industry).

4. When others voice a separate opinion, I tell them they are wrong.
5. Not because I can prove it, but because I am aligned with the majority.
6. Now, when the guts of the claims are laid on the table.....they can't be examined or challenged.
7 Why? Because I can't defend them. All I can say is......

My experts said so......so there.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That's better than the crazies who have only themselves to say they are expert. Sorry, but I just don't believe every anonymous stranger claiming to be an expert.

Without going to the internet, type out the names of the people you call your "experts". Right now......Go!

 

[BULLDOG]

because you wouldn't pass a junior high science class, and all you are capable of is parroting what MSDNC defines as "the experts," and those are who your hero homO blocked from being indicted in 2010...

Google Search

I haven't spent any time worrying about your opinion of my jr high years, and that' not going to change any time soon. Just admit you are so adamant because of political reasons. You'll feel better for embracing your crazy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Apparently, that is you. You seem to be without any logic.

I can't tell you how many people I know completed 3 years of college but never finished.

They were very well trained in certain things..by others....and had no certification.

But, I am still wondering just what certification you are looking for and what expertise you reference.

And again, how would you know if they were real.

Most diplomas from credible school are verifiable. Peer reviewed papers are a good sign too.

 

[BULLDOG]

I see.

Or how it works apparently.

But you still seem to argue with those who think they do (and have shown pretty good competency in that regard).

You pass judgement on them (often times incorrectly).

Thank you for being so candid about your position.

Bulldog's Position:

1. I don't know how to interpret data or draw conclusions on my own.
2. I know some people who claim to do so. They seem to be in the majority.
3. So I claim their position as my own. I can't really explain it, but I claim it.

.....now up to this point, I have no issues......I certainly would not spend my time talking to you seeing as how you are only going to parrot other's points (that you have no idea if they are right.....but they are credentialed....as if credentialed people never lied......ask the cigarette industry).

4. When others voice a separate opinion, I tell them they are wrong.
5. Not because I can prove it, but because I am aligned with the majority.
6. Now, when the guts of the claims are laid on the table.....they can't be examined or challenged.
7 Why? Because I can't defend them. All I can say is......

My experts said so......so there.

You're circling around it, but not there yet.
I acknowledge I am not as qualified as experts when interpreting data or drawing conclusions on this subject.
I have a general idea of the prevailing opinion of experts
I am at a loss a far as the esoteric aspects of the subject, so I rely predominant on pronouncements by qualified experts
When others voice a separate opinion, I compare their verifiable expertise with those of known verifiable expertise, and note any differences.
I am aligned with the consensus opinion of qualified experts
I won't change my opinion based on charts, graphs, etc. that I am unqualified to interpret.
Show me verifiable expertise in the field, and I will certainly give your thought more weight.
Verifiable expertise is the deciding factor for me. Not charts or a list of data.

 

[BULLDOG]

Without going to the internet, type out the names of the people you call your "experts". Right now......Go!

Rather than specific scientists, I rely on consensus.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You're circling around it, but not there yet.

How would you know this?

I acknowledge I am not as qualified as experts when interpreting data or drawing conclusions on this subject.

You have said you can't explain it. The above statement is a huge change in your position.

I have a general idea of the prevailing opinion of experts

That is a much different statement than the previous.

First of all, opinions are not what scientific experts offer up. They analyze data and reach conclusions. The two should be linked and understandable. Not so much in the fine details, but at some level.

I am at a loss a far as the esoteric aspects of the subject, so I rely predominant on pronouncements by qualified experts

I'll hold on this one until I finish reading.

When others voice a separate opinion, I compare their verifiable expertise with those of known verifiable expertise, and note any differences.

What verifiable expertise are you talking about. Just what do you check for. Provide an example. Additionally, scientists are not robots. They are a bit of an odd lot. Compared to engineers (that would be me) they tend to live in some kind of alternate universe. Engineers have to make things work and work economically. Scientists find things, bring them to engineers, often thinking....someone should want this...when they have no clue about what is needed or wanted. I worked for a large multinational (Dupont) where the research folks thought that the company only generated cash to do more research. And some of the crap they spent time on could have been saved had they asked a few people instead of just taking off down some road......

So, I am curious to know just what expertise you think is important here and how you verify it. Calling someone a climate scientist means just about nothing to me. Climate science is chemistry, thermodynamics (which means math).

I am aligned with the consensus opinion of qualified experts

Meaning you trust them. You have no way of validating them. Their titles are what you trust because you can't engage the actual chemistry and thermo they use.

Do you examine their assumptions?

Do you look at their track records?

Do you look at the track record of the "industry" as a whole? One that includes calls, by big names in the industry, for decertification of anyone in the industry who does not buy the party line (blackmail)?

I won't change my opinion based on charts, graphs, etc. that I am unqualified to interpret.

What opinion do you even have?

Can you state it out loud or is it just "What he said"?

Additionally, climate scientist is not an all-encompassing term. There are dozens of fields that feed into that general term. There is practically nobody who understands them all. And that is talking about the actual physical science. Nevermind the concept of "modeling" that they have attempted (and not been successful at.

Show me verifiable expertise in the field, and I will certainly give your thought more weight.

Once again....what is verifiable expertise? A diploma? Experience? Success at something?

Expertise can mean a ton of different things. And as I already stated, nobody covers the entire field.

So, just what is it that you think represents something that is cogent and verifiable?

Verifiable expertise is the deciding factor for me. Not charts or a list of data.

I give you credit for admitting you are completely dependent upon THEM for YOUR opinion.

You really don't have one of your own. If they change their minds, you change yours? Correct?

If that is the case, then why do bother to defend anything or attack those who have different opinions than you do?

You can't defend it. You don't even understand it. You trust them. That is what I am hearing.

If someone attacks what you've adopted, you attack them or do an schmidlap (a Saul Alinsky disciple if ever one existed). I don't see how you can do that.

Basically, my scientists are better than you or your scientists. Seemingly ignoring all of the other factors that go into this.

While I appreciate the candor (because it describes many people here), I find it hard to understand how you can justify your statements about what is right and what is wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

How would you know this?

You have said you can't explain it. The above statement is a huge change in your position.

That is a much different statement than the previous.

First of all, opinions are not what scientific experts offer up. They analyze data and reach conclusions. The two should be linked and understandable. Not so much in the fine details, but at some level.

I'll hold on this one until I finish reading.

What verifiable expertise are you talking about. Just what do you check for. Provide an example. Additionally, scientists are not robots. They are a bit of an odd lot. Compared to engineers (that would be me) they tend to live in some kind of alternate universe. Engineers have to make things work and work economically. Scientists find things, bring them to engineers, often thinking....someone should want this...when they have no clue about what is needed or wanted. I worked for a large multinational (Dupont) where the research folks thought that the company only generated cash to do more research. And some of the crap they spent time on could have been saved had they asked a few people instead of just taking off down some road......

So, I am curious to know just what expertise you think is important here and how you verify it. Calling someone a climate scientist means just about nothing to me. Climate science is chemistry, thermodynamics (which means math).

Meaning you trust them. You have no way of validating them. Their titles are what you trust because you can't engage the actual chemistry and thermo they use.

Do you examine their assumptions?

Do you look at their track records?

Do you look at the track record of the "industry" as a whole? One that includes calls, by big names in the industry, for decertification of anyone in the industry who does not buy the party line (blackmail)?


What opinion do you even have?

Can you state it out loud or is it just "What he said"?

Additionally, climate scientist is not an all-encompassing term. There are dozens of fields that feed into that general term. There is practically nobody who understands them all. And that is talking about the actual physical science. Nevermind the concept of "modeling" that they have attempted (and not been successful at.

Once again....what is verifiable expertise? A diploma? Experience? Success at something?

Expertise can mean a ton of different things. And as I already stated, nobody covers the entire field.

So, just what is it that you think represents something that is cogent and verifiable?

I give you credit for admitting you are completely dependent upon THEM for YOUR opinion.

You really don't have one of your own. If they change their minds, you change yours? Correct?

If that is the case, then why do bother to defend anything or attack those who have different opinions than you do?

You can't defend it. You don't even understand it. You trust them. That is what I am hearing.

If someone attacks what you've adopted, you attack them or do an schmidlap (a Saul Alinsky disciple if ever one existed). I don't see how you can do that.

Basically, my scientists are better than you or your scientists. Seemingly ignoring all of the other factors that go into this.

While I appreciate the candor (because it describes many people here), I find it hard to understand how you can justify your statements about what is right and what is wrong.

You put a lot of time and thought into that. I'm sure there isn't an unpicked nit within miles of your place.
My actual knowledge on the subject is minimal. I'm guessing about the same as the average person. I trust or mistrust those who claim to be more knowledgeable than me based on their credentials. Those include earned degrees, experience with recognized groups, peer reviewed papers, and whether their work seems to match a consensus within the field. No one of the listed indicators is the determining factor for me, but a predominance of indicators.
Example,
If I have heart problem, I am not going to ask for my most recent blood chemistry or want to see the actual chart from my EKG. Instead , I will use the above criteria to determine the best cardiologist available and go by his opinion of my best program of treatment. Anonymous remarks by internet crazies who can't be verified by those criteria don't fare well when faced with my choice of treatment. I don't care about what the crazies claim about my blood chemistry because I know very little about the interaction of my blood chemistry with heart heath anyway.
Similarly, I don't care about any data supporting unverifiable conclusions on the internet. Your charts and comparisons mean nothing to me. I'm not going to "study up" until I think my knowledge is equal to the experts I have chosen to believe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[EMH]

Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel need to allocate some "resources" to counter this. The data doesn't lie. There are a few storms in the past few years that were seeded big time, "Sandy" was one of them.

 

[ding]

You put a lot of time and thought into that. I'm sure there isn't an unpicked nit within miles of your place.
My actual knowledge on the subject is minimal. I'm guessing about the same as the average person. I trust or mistrust those who claim to be more knowledgeable than me based on their credentials. Those include earned degrees, experience with recognized groups, peer reviewed papers, and whether their work seems to match a consensus within the field. No one of the listed indicators is the determining factor for me, but a predominance of indicators.
Example,
If I have heart problem, I am not going to ask for my most recent blood chemistry or want to see the actual chart from my EKG. Instead , I will use the above criteria to determine the best cardiologist available and go by his opinion of my best program of treatment. Anonymous remarks by internet crazies who can't be verified by those criteria don't fare well when faced with my choice of treatment. I don't care about what the crazies claim about my blood chemistry because I know very little about the interaction of my blood chemistry with heart heath anyway.
Similarly, I don't care about any data supporting unverifiable conclusions on the internet. Your charts and comparisons mean nothing to me. I'm not going to "study up" until I think my knowledge is equal to the experts I have chosen to believe.

That’s because you are an idiot.