As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.
At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.
Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.
If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.
Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.
They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.
I hope you aren't asserting such a thing to my person, as I would be more than happy to describe in detail exactly what I think climatologists can shove up their ass if they follow anything other than the science.
Just reiterating the obvious as I believe I was answering GTH. But if you wish to describe in detail the various methodologies...feel free!