You don't say...lol

[westwall]

Like I said before, I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class

When is the last time you did work that helped push the boundaries of what humanity understands about the climate?

It doesn't matter. Science doesn't change. Something either is, or it isn't. Climatologists rely far too much on computer models that are proven to be biased.

There is no legitimate reason to use biased models. So why do they?

 

[Confounding]

It doesn't matter.

Yes, it does.

Tell me Westwall.

When is the last time you did relevant work in climate science? It is ridiculous to suggest that you know as much as people on the frontier of humanity's understanding of science. You are ignorant compared to them. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant because you are irrelevant.

Science doesn't change.

Our understanding of it does. A real scientist would never say something like this.

 

[SSDD]

They are the most educated people on this topic and they have turned understanding it into their careers. Helping humanity understand the climate better is what a climate scientist does. They are the ones discovering new information.

I asked a question...why are you unable to answer? You seem to believe that climatologists have some special education and special knowledge that other scientists don't have...what is it specifically. If you are going to claim that they are uniquely qualified to understand the movement of energy through air, then what precisely makes them more qualified than say...an engineer who specializes in the transmission of radiant energy through the air?

 

[SSDD]

Like I said before, I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class

When is the last time you did work that helped push the boundaries of what humanity understands about the climate?

When was the last time climate science did ay work that pushed the boundaries of what humanity understands about he climate...feel free to post the author and title of the paper where the boundaries were pushed...according to climate science, the science is settled...Settled science would mean that there is nothing left to learn.

 

[Confounding]

what is it specifically.

They actually do work in the subject being discussed while you run your mouth on the internet.

 

[SSDD]

Do you think they have a secret warehouse of "evidence" somewhere?

They go to work and do what climate scientists do, which is expand our understanding of the climate. That is what they've dedicated their lives to. You do not do that. You're just some dude running your mouth on the internet. Your belief that you've discovered an "error cascade" that they're incapable of seeing is absurd.

They claim that the science is settled...how does one expand on settled sceince...stettled infers that there is nothing left to learn...that all is known and understood.

And why would climate science be immune from an error cascade? It happens all the time in fields of science that are far more rigorous and tightly regulated than climate sceince...and when they are in the midst of an error cascade, they don't know...hindsight is 20/20...

An example of a relatively benign error cascade was when scientists ignored evidence before their very eyes for quite some time and said that the number of human chromosomes was 48... A very well respected researcher published a paper with a typo in it...the paper said that humans have 48 chromosomes...the number 48 made it into textbooks for a couple of decades...

A less benign example happened with Robert Millikan and electron mass. The oil drop experiment performed in 1909 showed that electrical change was quantized and implied the existence of sub atomic particles. He got a Nobel in physics in 1923..the problem was, that his value for the mass of an electron was low..by quite a large margin.
But because Millikan was such a famous guy, and had won the Nobel prize for his work, it took a very long time to actually correct this error. They went so far as to include a fudge factor in theories that used his work in order to cancel the error. Imagine, including a fudge factor in physics in order to cancel an error...How could physicists not see that they were perpetuating an error cascade?

The fact that you believe that climate science is immune from error cascades, and is incorruptible by money...and infallible in their beliefs seems borderline pathological to me....where do you get this notion that merely having a degree makes you immune from being human?

 

[Confounding]

They claim that the science is settled

You think scientists believe there is nothing left to learn?

 

[SSDD]

In science, consensus is irrelevant...what everyone in a whole field of science thinks is irrelevant

You're suggesting that your understanding is greater than the people who represent an entire field of science. These are the people that are guiding humanity in learning more. I'm not saying they get everything right the first time and that a consensus makes their views above question. I've explained that to you a dozen times, but you don't debate in good faith.

I am asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and neither you, nor all of climate science can produce it. What conclusion should a thinking person reach when not a single piece of observed measured evidence can be produced which supports a hypothesis over the null hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't matter.

Yes, it does.

Tell me Westwall.

When is the last time you did relevant work in climate science? It is ridiculous to suggest that you know as much as people on the frontier of humanity's understanding of science. You are ignorant compared to them. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant because you are irrelevant.

Science doesn't change.

Our understanding of it does. A real scientist would never say something like this.

A real scientist would never say that the sceince, especially in a relatively new field of study was "settled"....

 

[Confounding]

What conclusion should a thinking person reach

The conclusion a thinking person would reach is that they must be missing something. They don't fully understand the situation. If you weren't an arrogant fool you would realize you are ignorant.

 

[Confounding]

A real scientist would never say that the sceince, especially in a relatively new field of study was "settled"....

Show me real, active climate scientists claiming that there is nothing left to learn. Can you point me to any institution of science that is claiming we have nothing left to learn?

 

[SSDD]

what is it specifically.

They actually do work in the subject being discussed while you run your mouth on the internet.

What specialized education, or special knowledge do you believe climate scientists have that scientists in other fields don't have...Like I said...what would make a climate scientist more qualified to speak on the movement of energy through the air than an engineer who specializes in devices that either produce energy that moves through the air, or design instruments that measure the movement of energy through the air?

You seem to believe that the climate scientist is more qualified...what makes him more qualified?

 

[Confounding]

AGW skeptics need do some legwork and bring something new to the table that actually disputes the claims of the scientific community.

 

[Confounding]

what makes a climate scientist more qualified

The fact that understanding and working with the subject is their career.

 

[SSDD]

They claim that the science is settled

You think scientists believe there is nothing left to learn?

When one says there is no room for debate...the topic is settled...what does that say to you other than it is not possible to introduce anything new, or anything that has not already been thoroughly examined to the discussion?

 

[Confounding]

what does that say to you other than it is not possible to introduce anything new, or anything that has not already been thoroughly examined to the discussion?

You're a fool if you actually believe scientists are saying there is nothing left to learn and no room for adjustments to our understanding.

 

[westwall]

It doesn't matter.

Yes, it does.

Tell me Westwall.

When is the last time you did relevant work in climate science? It is ridiculous to suggest that you know as much as people on the frontier of humanity's understanding of science. You are ignorant compared to them. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant because you are irrelevant.

Science doesn't change.

Our understanding of it does. A real scientist would never say something like this.

Once again, it doesn't matter. Physics doesn't magically change. Your high priests don't have a direct line to GOD so are suddenly all knowing.

This is an infantile argument put forth by sycophants who somehow believe their high priests have been granted special understanding.

That is ridiculous.

 

[SSDD]

What conclusion should a thinking person reach

The conclusion a thinking person would reach is that they must be missing something. They don't fully understand the situation. If you weren't an arrogant fool you would realize you are ignorant.

Which is why I have spent decades now searching and asking for even a single piece of observed, measured evidnece which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...It isn't as if I spent an hour on google and then decided that there was no such evidence...

And clearly, you are the one who is ignorant here...you believe that only climate scientists can understand the sceince...how stupid is that? Have you ever bothered to look up lists of climate scientists? Have you ever bothered to note how many different types of degrees they have? There are geologists who are recognized as climate scientists...there are computer scientist who are recognized as climate scientists....there are meteorologists who are recognized as climate scientists...there are statisticians who are recognized as climate scientists...there are oceanographers who are recognized as climate scientists..geophysicists, glaciologists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians, computer modelers, paleontologists, physicists, biochemists, earth scientists...etc etc etc ad nauseam... That is because practically anyone with any sort of degree even remotely related to science is able to understand the science associated with climate...hell...it is just energy movement...nothing particularly complicated there...

 

[westwall]

what does that say to you other than it is not possible to introduce anything new, or anything that has not already been thoroughly examined to the discussion?

You're a fool if you actually believe scientists are saying there is nothing left to learn and no room for adjustments to our understanding.

Ummmm, that's what YOUR high priests are claiming. "Settled science " is their mantra, not ours.

 

[SSDD]

A real scientist would never say that the sceince, especially in a relatively new field of study was "settled"....

Show me real, active climate scientists claiming that there is nothing left to learn. Can you point me to any institution of science that is claiming we have nothing left to learn?

What does the statement.."the argument is over...the science is settled" mean to you?