You don't say...lol

[SSDD]

He is no scientist.

All I have done is defend people that are scientists.

Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...

 

[Confounding]

Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...

The most educated people that actually do real career work with the subject matter are the ones most qualified to discuss it.

 

[SSDD]

Yes....an atmospheric physicist opinion on how energy moves through the atmosphere caries orders of magnitude more weight than the opinion of one with a degree in climatology...

Would you say most atmospheric physicists don't believe AGW is happening?

there are a great many of them who don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis... That is one of the dishonesties of the 97% myth....the survey that came from looked only at climatologists...it excludes people who are far more qualified than climatologists who don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis...rare is the engineer who subscribes to AGW but engineers are among the most practically qualified scientists out there in the real world...meteorologists as a whole aren't on board with the AGW hypothesis...if you are in a field of science other than climatology, your belief in the AGW hypothesis probably depends on whether you need to subscribe to it in order to get a pay check...

 

[Confounding]

there are a great many of them who don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis

What do most of them believe?

Do the ones that don't believe it outnumber the ones that do?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You seem to think you have a lock on who should and should not be relevant in a climate discussion.

I am saying the opinions of climate scientists are the most relevant in a discussion about the climate. You disagree?

What is most important is the efficacy of the argument, which ANY intelligent person can promote though science research. Educational credentials by themselves doesn't create valid opinions, REPRODUCIBLE research is what counts, which doesn't care about the education or experience level of the person publishing.

You think opinions of a class of people drives science research?



Do you know who Milton Humason is, and how he manage to be a productive member in a famous Obervatory. despite not having a HIGH SCHOOL diploma!

Biography
Humason dropped out of school and had no formal education past the age of 14. Because he loved the mountains, and Mount Wilson in particular, he became a "mule skinner" taking materials and equipment up the mountain while Mount Wilson Observatory was being built. In 1917, after a short stint on a ranch in La Verne, he became a janitor at the observatory. Out of sheer interest, he volunteered to be a night assistant at the observatory. His technical skill and quiet manner made him a favorite on the mountain. Recognizing his talent, in 1919, George Ellery Hale made him a Mt. Wilson staff member. This was unprecedented, as Humason did not have a Ph.D., or even a high school diploma. He soon proved Hale's judgment correct, as he made several key observational discoveries. He became known as a meticulous observer, obtaining photographs and difficult spectrograms of faint galaxies. His observations played a major role in the development of physical cosmology, including assisting Edwin Hubble in formulating Hubble's law. In 1950 he earned a D.Sc. from Lund University.[1] He retired in 1957.

bolding mine

LINK

Face it, your tortured arguments are beyond silly, and so are your consensus/education/authority fallacies. You are arguing with at least THREE scientists, yet you don't even acknowledge the possibility that they might have a better argument than your pet group of consensus driven and modeling infected warmist government paid scientists.

Reproducible science is what drives science research, NOT opinions, Education credentials, and consensus pablum's.

 

[SSDD]

Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...

The most educated people that actually do real career work with the subject matter are the ones most qualified to discuss it.

Maybe true, if you were talking about a hard science like chemistry, physics, meteorology, geology or engineering...not so when you are talking about a soft science like climatology...any masters degreed chemist, physicist, meteorologist, geologist, or engineer could teach practically any course, including PhD level courses in climatology while a PhD climatologist would be hopelessly lost trying to teach even 4000 level courses in the hard sciences and probably couldn't pass...much less teach a masters or PhD level course...

You have this terribly inflated, completely unrealistic idea of what a climate scientist is...most working "climate scientists" are nothing more than undergraduates in one field of study or another working in the field trying to earn money for college...

 

[Billy_Bob]

there are a great many of them who don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis

What do most of them believe?

Do the ones that don't believe it outnumber the ones that do?

You obviously didn't read Flactenn's posts on the Von Storch and the 120 questions directly related to AGW. There is NO CONSENSUS....None!

 

[Confounding]

Maybe true, if...

No, definitely true period. If you don't think so then we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[SSDD]

there are a great many of them who don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis

What do most of them believe?

Do the ones that don't believe it outnumber the ones that do?

Take some time to email a few of them...They are very approachable. I recently asked William Happer to clarify a question I had regarding energy movement through the atmosphere...he went so far as to provide me with a paper that was in for publication but not yet published by way of answer...most real scientists are very approachable and are more than willing to discuss science with anyone...they will even speak to a scientific illiterate like you..

 

[Confounding]

There is NO CONSENSUS....None!

Would most atmospheric physicists say that AGW is a hoax with no evidence to support it?

 

[Confounding]

Take some time to email a few of them

Do you believe that most of them would say AGW is a hoax with no evidence to support it? I am asking you a clear question. Are you capable of giving a clear answer?

 

[SSDD]

Maybe true, if...

No, definitely true period. If you don't think so then we have nothing left to discuss.

Got yourself a nice little circular fallacy there...it effectively defends you from either learning anything or ever having to acknowledge that you have been mistaken.. Of course, as a side effect, it leaves you stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't really matter to you...does i?

 

[Confounding]

Got yourself a nice little circular fallacy there.

Whatever you say Sparky. Thanks for the discussion. I'm sorry we couldn't come to an understanding.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is NO CONSENSUS....None!

Would most atmospheric physicists say that global warming is a hoax with no evidence to support it?

Anthroprogenic Warming has no evidenciary link. This doesn't mean the earth is not warming. The natural causes can and have created warming much faster and far greater in the past. At this point Man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system. All current understanding and papers published show man's infuence to be less than 2% of the current warming. ie; 0.01 deg C.

 

[SSDD]

Take some time to email a few of them

Do you believe that most of them would say AGW is a hoax with no evidence to support it? I am asking you a clear question. Are you capable of giving a clear answer?

Hoax is your word...Like I said, I believe climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade and being co-opted by politics.. I am semi retired now but my work brought me into contact with a large number of PhD's...and I still do some travel in my field and see a lot of PhD's who don't depend on government grants for their daily bread and my position on the AGW hypothesis comes from my own research and long conversations with them. You simply won't find many actual scientists in the hard sciences who put much stock in the AGW hypothesis if their paycheck doesn't depend on them subscribing to it...

 

[Confounding]

There is NO CONSENSUS....None!

Would most atmospheric physicists say that global warming is a hoax with no evidence to support it?

Anthroprogenic Warming has no evidenciary link. This doesn't mean the earth is not warming. The natural causes can and have created warming much faster and far greater in the past. At this point Man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system. All current understanding and papers published show man's infuence to be less than 2% of the current warming. ie; 0.01 deg C.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[SSDD]

Got yourself a nice little circular fallacy there.

Whatever you say Sparky. Thanks for the discussion. I'm sorry we couldn't come to an understanding.

I can support my position with observed, measured science...you, on the other hand can't...the understanding is that you are operating from a position of faith, while I am operating from a position of empirical evidence...

 

[Confounding]

I believe climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade

Do you think most atmospheric physicists would agree with that? Do you think anything close to a majority of any scientific organization on Earth would agree with that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is NO CONSENSUS....None!

Would most atmospheric physicists say that global warming is a hoax with no evidence to support it?

Anthroprogenic Warming has no evidenciary link. This doesn't mean the earth is not warming. The natural causes can and have created warming much faster and far greater in the past. At this point Man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system. All current understanding and papers published show man's infuence to be less than 2% of the current warming. ie; 0.01 deg C.

You didn't answer my question.

I wont until you tell me what your credentials are that give you superior authority to make the claims you are.

 

[SSDD]

There is NO CONSENSUS....None!

Would most atmospheric physicists say that global warming is a hoax with no evidence to support it?

Anthroprogenic Warming has no evidenciary link. This doesn't mean the earth is not warming. The natural causes can and have created warming much faster and far greater in the past. At this point Man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system. All current understanding and papers published show man's infuence to be less than 2% of the current warming. ie; 0.01 deg C.

You didn't answer my question.

Why do you insist on applying the word hoax? Science can be wrong without having been a hoax...Was the idea that stress causes gastric ulcers a hoax? It was wrong for generations..but was it a hoax?