You don't say...lol

[daveman]

bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument

That's not my job. Why are you making it my responsibility to educate you?

Anyway the argument I've presented is enough. The vast majority of practicing climate scientists disagree with your assertions. Is it possible you're missing some knowledge and context compared to somebody on the frontier of climate research?

The only argument you've presented, you dishonest Scientologist, is AGREE WITH ME OR UR STOOPID.

You really should have not come back to this thread.

 

[Confounding]

no further notice need be taken of you.

Sounds good.

 

[SSDD]

bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument

That's not my job. Why are you making it my responsibility to educate you?

Anyway the argument I've presented is enough. The vast majority of practicing climate scientists disagree with your assertions. Is it possible you're missing some knowledge and context compared to somebody on the frontier of climate research?

All you have "presented" is one logical fallacy after another. And you are right...it is enough...enough to tag you as a useful idiot...and worse, an uneducated, propagandized, manipulated and unapologetic useful idiot.

 

[westwall]

bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument

That's not my job. Why are you making it my responsibility to educate you?

Anyway the argument I've presented is enough. The vast majority of practicing climate scientists disagree with your assertions. Is it possible you're missing some knowledge and context compared to somebody on the frontier of climate research?

All you have "presented" is one logical fallacy after another. And you are right...it is enough...enough to tag you as a useful idiot...and worse, an uneducated, propagandized, manipulated and unapologetic useful idiot.

Yes, don't feed the troll.

 

[baileyn45]

According to the global warming community, the Earth is warming,

True.

man made emissions are to blame

I think it's more accurate to say according to the "global warming community" or climate scientists all over the world as I like to call them, man made emissions are contributing to the warming to some extent. How much of an impact they have is not settled, and there's much to be learned by the same scientists you people call liars and frauds.

Congratulations, you make one. I have been hearing about how we have 12 yrs (now 11) before humanity is doomed.

I'm still waiting for some one to explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived. Still no takers. I'm told about "homogenizing" data, "extrapolating" data and yet no one can give me straight up unadulterated data. On top of this we're going to compare this to past times, when there is no data. ???????????????????????

And "climate scientist" can foretell the future?

Have you ever stopped and thought about one question. What is a "climate scientist"? The study of "climate" is a conglomeration of physical sciences. Find some "consensus" among them. You can't..It doesn't exist,

There is not one "scientist" that can provide "proof" that man made emissions are the primary driver of the climate. None. Not one. If you dispute that, provide proof. We that love science are waiting. What bothers many of us more is no one is even trying.

I keep going back to the same question, how is the average temperature of planet Earth derived? No one wants to talk about it. Look into it, it's a friggin joke.

 

[flacaltenn]

See my post above Bullwinkle

It's good to see you do more than try to undermine my defense of science and scientists.

Jim Hansen??? Is that YOU??? We've missed your fairy tales buddy

You agreed earlier when I stated that I'm not an alarmist. Why not respond to the rest of my post?

Saying "you're not an alarmist" doesn't say anything about your opinions on the actual science.. Or where you're getting that opinion.. It's really not much at all to go on... But thanks for that small hint of a position on a complex topic...

 

[flacaltenn]

The only deniers of science are those who willfully ignore the scientific method. That would be YOUR hero's. The climatologists who instead of making their raw data and methods available (as is required by the scientific method) instead resort to name calling and threats of imprisonment or death for the unbelievers.

flacaltenn

I noticed you didn't react to this post. I was wondering about your opinion of the points just made by this scientist.

Like I said discussing nuances with a guy who is MORE INTERESTED in our views than the science just is not my bag... That statement above tho IS factually correct... Many times over.. Could be explained by taking one of the "crusaders in labcoats" and showing you the guy at his "office"... You'll understand why "he can't make his data available" just by looking at the picture... Name is Phil Jones.. Associated with the ClimateGate group at East Anglia CRU.. In fact, one of the chief data bakers there... Picture is an outtake from PBS special on Climate.

No scientist I EVER worked with had an office like that in the 21st century....

I think his lunch is on the floor under his hat to keep the rats out of it...

 

[flacaltenn]

None of the people here are actually qualified to discuss the science because on this topic in particular they're not as educated as real climate scientists, the people at the forefront of what we understand.

Liars and frauds exist in all fields. Especially at POLITICALLY APPOINTED posts and posts tthat are majority government funded.. The worst lapse of principle in ANY scientist is giving interviews to naive and frankly stupid journalists and INTENTIONALLY leading them to horrific conclusions. Like James Hansen did when he went off the rails to describe the "future of GW on EARTH" by comparing it to Venus in front of a dingbat reporter. This ended up with him on record declaring "it all ends when the oceans boil"... That's worst than Inquistion methods.

And sure enough on CBS special on GW, there's a picture of the ocean with the caption bolded on it saying 212 Degress Fahrenheit... That's lying in terms of scientific integrity...

Mann is another example. THE MAN for "hockey sticks" which in themselves are a deception of data assembly and graphing.. HE has never sliced an ice core or read a tree ring or run chemical analysis on a 30,000 yr old mud bug shell, but his misrepresentation of HOW GOOD his data was -- didn't stop him from exaggerating conclusions to the public and the press.. His PAPERS weren't the problem.. Peer reviewed and all that, but his GRANDSTANDING prophet of doom act were the problem..

And guys like Phil Jones who simply CANNOT produce the data they used because they work like slobs and don't even keep good scientific journals and wouldn't COMPLY with a request for his data even IF he did. And Phil Jones only cares about 200,000 thermometer readings at the Earth's surface and has NEVER worked on analyzing the far more UNIFORM, RELIABLE and ACCURATE satellite record.. Yet HIS records in the mind of the public are MORE important than our fleet of 8 or 10 high tech weather AMSU satellites that circle 90% of the globe UNIFORMLY every day....

I told you it's about 10 or 12 grandstanding activists in labcoats giving cover for OVER-HYPED and inaccurate assessments of the REAL science...

And I also told you that GW scientists come from about 25 different fields. It's probably the MOST interdisciplinary science that there is.. There are specialists in penguins and squid that write seminal papers on GW and give THEIR opinions on the future and the outcome.

That's why for ME -- I have scientific tools and specialties that are CRITICAL to the modeling, systems analysis, data preparation and the analysis of simple ass temperature studies that MOST "GW" scientists don't have. And the other advantage that I have is that I've worked in an extraordinarily "interdisciplinary" fashion over about 6 or 8 different fields in my career...

YOU OTH -- have a very naive view of who IS a GW scientist and don't understand how many specialists it takes to expound on these theories...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Confounding, I'm really pretty modest about stuff. It's only because you're pushing the limit on personal stuff here.. To be thorough, I and my group at an Image Processing HW company, we're one of the first groups to computerized things like "sea ice measurement", "urban heat island" effects... That's ACTUALLY BEFORE the public KNEW there WAS such a thing as "climate scientists" and the field was stuck with ground based observations and measurements of the Earth...

We've only had sophisticated space platforms up for about 30 years.. That's how YOUNG and immature this field is...

 

[flacaltenn]

OK -- gotta admit it was fun for awhile poking at each other.. But some mod is gonna come around and close this and warn a bunch of folks if we don't cut it out..

Truce... If it's not about what the PUBLIC gets to know about Climate science and how that becomes a chronic problem like this mass hysteria over a Greenland meltdown that did not happen, it doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Confounding]

The worst lapse of principle in ANY scientist is giving interviews to naive and frankly stupid journalists

Journalists that are naive and ignorant when it comes to climate science? You mean all of them? I agree that it sucks when journalists do their job and hype science information. If that didn't happen there would be even more criticism of scientists for not doing more to break down their work into something the public can digest.

James Hansen

Mann

I don't have much to say in defense of the two names you've mentioned. I agree that their mouths are big and that the situation might not be as dire as they suggest. Some scientists are afraid of the things being discovered, and perhaps that fear is impacting their perspective. There is not a conspiracy among climate scientists though.

REAL science...

GW scientists come from about 25 different fields.

What are most real scientists saying about the real science? Will you tell me the truth clearly and without a bunch of bullshit to mitigate it?

I've worked in

When is the last time you've done work that helped humanity map the unknown in climate science? I respect you and your opinions because of the work you've done in the past, but the truth is anybody that's not an active scientist involved in the field is ignorant compared to people that are out there discovering.

Flacal, will you admit clearly to me that the vast majority of relevant scientists agree that AGW is happening to some extent?

YOU OTH -- have a very naive view of who IS a GW scientist

You don't actually know what my view is because I've gone out of my way to not elaborate. I think my view is irrelevant to the points I made. I think this crowd wants to focus on what I think rather than what scientists at large think because it's a lot easier to attack one person than it is to attack the entire scientific community. It is very significant that virtually all relevant scientists are in agreement that humans are having some impact.

 

[Confounding]

you're pushing the limit on personal stuff here

You brought your credentials into this conversation, not me. I'm sorry it's annoying to be told that despite your credentials you are not actually as qualified as scientists that are actively pushing the limit of what humanity understands. What I told you is the truth though, and I think that truth is relevant when you're touting your credentials as a scientist.

 

[Confounding]

Truce

Fine, but if you hit me with rebuttals I will respond to them. I'll gladly take a warning for that if you think it's appropriate.

How would you feel about a 1v1 conversation in the appropriate part of the forum?

 

[Confounding]

One of my posts was deleted because "the topic is not what a poster's day at work is like."

That is a relevant part of the discussion when a poster has claimed that their profession makes their understanding of the topic equal to active climate scientists. Meanwhile I have not even claimed authority due to my profession and people throughout the thread have turned the focus on what it is that I do for work.

That was a poor moderation decision and I think there's some hypocrisy going on. Why force boundaries that make it harder for me to demonstrate when and why people are full of shit?

flacaltenn

Either way I am only interested in exchanging with you at this point. Are you done? I'd be more than happy to continue somewhere we won't be interrupted by the peanut gallery.

 

[SSDD]

]

You don't actually know what my view is because I've gone out of my way to not elaborate. I think my view is irrelevant to the points I made.

Thus far, you have made no points...you have done nothing more than express one logical fallacy after another and voiced a startlingly naive, stary eyed admiration for climate scientists..

 

[Sunsettommy]

you're pushing the limit on personal stuff here

You brought your credentials into this conversation, not me. I'm sorry it's annoying to be told that despite your credentials you are not actually as qualified as scientists that are actively pushing the limit of what humanity understands. What I told you is the truth though, and I think that truth is relevant when you're touting your credentials as a scientist.

Why are you LYING, Counfounded?

These are your dishonest words in reply to a request you GET BACK ON TOPIC!

"I think my observation is relevant. This kind of stuff only comes from agenda driven websites with questionable credibility.

Do you think it'd be easier to make a few bogus websites to push misleading narratives or get the vast majority of scientists all over the planet on board with lying about the science?"

That was your POST 9, in the very first page of the thread.

===

It was YOU who brought up the idea that only certain people are qualified in climate science, it was YOU who derailed the thread with several claims that has nothing to do with the topic.

Here is YOUR very first comment in the thread, Post 3:

"These kinds of perspectives always seem to come from agenda driven sites like wattsupwiththat.com.

Got anything better? I'll even take Fox News."

Your question was already answered IF you bothered to read the first post link, where it showed the link to THE LOCAL, a Danish website saying the same thing WUWT was saying.

===

You next POST shows you are already abandoning the topic and your first attempt to push the qualification idea in some way, all the while you show no demonstrated qualification on your own at all.

"You won't find perspectives like this on more reputable websites."

"I doubt you're qualified for that because you're somebody that actually believes there's a worldwide science conspiracy."

===

then his THIRD POST reply, he goes full bullcrap:

"I think my observation is relevant. This kind of stuff only comes from agenda driven websites with questionable credibility."

Do you think it'd be easier to make a few bogus websites to push misleading narratives or get the vast majority of scientists all over the planet on board with lying about the science?"

NO effort to discuss the topic itself, this is trolling behavior who attacks a website without merit, and doesn't discuss the TOPIC itself!

The troll ignored the internal Danish website that also said This headline:

Danish climate body wrongly reported Greenland heat record

compare with WUWT,

Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong

===

Meanwhile at POST 21, I made a reply telling the off topic troll that THE LOCAL Danish website states the same as WUWT. The Counfounded TROLL ignored it completely, wend deeper into off topic stuff, never once address the claims of the first post at all. He went into conspiracy, science qualifications, and more off topic baloney, which he started doing in the first page of the thread.

You were corrected, yet you IGNORED IT!

Since the troll is trying to further his off topic bullcrap today, it is time to CLOSE the thread down!

 

[Confounding]

you have made no points

On the science itself? You are correct.

Do you know as much as climate scientists do? We're talking about people that not only went to college, but also make a career out of pushing the limits of our understanding of the climate. This is another one of those yes or no questions that I'll have to pull teeth to get you to answer clearly.

Who knows the most about the climate? Whose view has the most context and experience behind it? What are the majority of the people that are most educated about the topic saying? I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying they're the most educated, and I'm asking you what those most educated people tend to say.

You still don't understand how ignorant it is to even believe that climate scientists are invested in not seeing anything contrary to the consensus. Any group of researchers would love to find information that throws what is believed into question. Do you not understand why? It's because their names will be in science news that receives worldwide attention. That's how you make it big in the science world. You discover shit that causes us to reassess what we think we know about the world.

 

[Confounding]

It was YOU who brought up the idea that only certain people are qualified in climate science

That is a relevant and true statement. That true statement was answered by people claiming that they're qualified enough to be compared to active climate scientists. The truth however is that they're not, even if they think they are. I did not pull their credentials in. They put them out there when I said anybody that isn't a scientist in this field isn't actually qualified to discuss the science.

I'm not going to let some AGW denying engineer get away with comparing his understanding of science to the scientists that actively expand what we understand.

it is time to CLOSE the thread down!

Use the mods to shut me up if you can. It doesn't change anything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That true statement was answered by people claiming that they're qualified enough to be compared to active climate scientists.

You wouldn't know a qualified climate scientist was if they bit you on the ass..

You are a TROLL... Full Stop!

 

[daveman]

confounding: i have not stated my views on agw

also confounding: if you disagree with my cult your stoopid

You've made your views quite plain, dood. And you have no basis to dismiss the opinions of experts simply because they don't support your dogma. They, quite simply, know better than you.