People who don't believe in climate change, why don't you believe in it?

[orogenicman]

Geology, an almost, nearly, sort of, distantly related field of science.

Funny, orogenicman was defending his field as one that is completely relevant to climatology. Do we choose to listen to the opinion of one geologist and not the other based on their opinions? Hmmmm......

The answer to your question is no. My opinion is based on the scientific facts, but is only meant as a starting point for further study. I am not your instructor. If you want to form a reasonable conclusion about climatology, I suggest that listening to the opinions of people in the field is a good place to start. But it is only a start. You are going to have to do some work on your own to come to that reasonable conclusion.

dude, how many times will you post this garbage, ok, what scientific facts? Please explain. It seems you like to post that statement like you have it. So let's see it.

See, this is where I am support to play the role of your tutor. Problem is, you aren't actually interested in the science. You are only interested in trolling, which is all you have ever done here. Get a life, just crazy.

Oh and genius, it is "supposed". Funny shit man. No, you made a statement and now are backing away from it. You have no scientific facts do you? You are a fraud.

Troll.

 

[jc456]

Funny, orogenicman was defending his field as one that is completely relevant to climatology. Do we choose to listen to the opinion of one geologist and not the other based on their opinions? Hmmmm......

The answer to your question is no. My opinion is based on the scientific facts, but is only meant as a starting point for further study. I am not your instructor. If you want to form a reasonable conclusion about climatology, I suggest that listening to the opinions of people in the field is a good place to start. But it is only a start. You are going to have to do some work on your own to come to that reasonable conclusion.

dude, how many times will you post this garbage, ok, what scientific facts? Please explain. It seems you like to post that statement like you have it. So let's see it.

See, this is where I am support to play the role of your tutor. Problem is, you aren't actually interested in the science. You are only interested in trolling, which is all you have ever done here. Get a life, just crazy.

Oh and genius, it is "supposed". Funny shit man. No, you made a statement and now are backing away from it. You have no scientific facts do you? You are a fraud.

Troll.

fraud!!!! neat game,

 

[orogenicman]

The answer to your question is no. My opinion is based on the scientific facts, but is only meant as a starting point for further study. I am not your instructor. If you want to form a reasonable conclusion about climatology, I suggest that listening to the opinions of people in the field is a good place to start. But it is only a start. You are going to have to do some work on your own to come to that reasonable conclusion.

dude, how many times will you post this garbage, ok, what scientific facts? Please explain. It seems you like to post that statement like you have it. So let's see it.

See, this is where I am support to play the role of your tutor. Problem is, you aren't actually interested in the science. You are only interested in trolling, which is all you have ever done here. Get a life, just crazy.

Oh and genius, it is "supposed". Funny shit man. No, you made a statement and now are backing away from it. You have no scientific facts do you? You are a fraud.

Troll.

fraud!!!! neat game,

 

[jc456]

dude, how many times will you post this garbage, ok, what scientific facts? Please explain. It seems you like to post that statement like you have it. So let's see it.

See, this is where I am support to play the role of your tutor. Problem is, you aren't actually interested in the science. You are only interested in trolling, which is all you have ever done here. Get a life, just crazy.

Oh and genius, it is "supposed". Funny shit man. No, you made a statement and now are backing away from it. You have no scientific facts do you? You are a fraud.

Troll.

fraud!!!! neat game,

that's a failed picture s0n. Like every other post you make.

 

[ralfy]

The only reason there is any imagined controversy at all is because of FOX News and other right wing media outlets. They've contrived their own false, preemptive, counter narrative, based on no actual science of any kind. They apparently want people to believe that their media generated opinions about science are somehow relevant to the discussion. Unless you are a scientist, your opinions about science don't matter.

No the reason why there is controversy is because the theory of AGW is dead and buried. A legitimate scientist would have abandoned it and moved on to the next theory. However, the perpetrators of this now fraudulent behavior, are looking at the trillions of dollars they hope to rake in so they have abandoned science and gone all out on the politics and pseudo-science route.

Now it's all about money and power.

Actually, that's not what scientists do.

Also, the irony in this argument is that one of the reasons given by skeptics to question AGW is that the science is not "settled," and that means more funding needed for further study.

You should correct your statement. "That's not what GOOD scientists do". It is now established beyond a doubt that the climatologists are not "good" scientists. Hell, they're not even average scientists. They downright suck.

No, that's not what scientists do. They study the matter further using more data sets and instrumentation, especially given the ironic point by some of their critics that the science isn't "settled" because it's "complex."

Also, you should share peer-reviewed studies that prove that climatologists are not good scientists.

Yes, data sets. Not computer models. The entirety of climatology is based on computer models which ignorant people seem to believe (including and especially climatologists, which is what makes them bad scientists) is data. Computer models are not data. One of the most ridiculous "studies" I have ever seen was a computer model, which ran several computer models together and compared their results. This was considered a great study.

It's farcical the depth to which climatology has dropped.

Actually, both.

Also, climate studies are not based on computer models alone for painfully obvious reasons.

It was never claimed that computer models are data.

Please mention the study, explain how it did not use data, and why you think it represents most studies. Also, refer to several peer-reviewed studies to back your claim.

Finally, you still need to refer to peer-reviewed studies to back your claim that climatologists are not good scientists.

 

[jc456]

Finally, you still need to refer to peer-reviewed studies to back your claim that climatologists are not good scientists.

Peer reviewed. Why? why does it need to be judged by some cult club? information is information and it should be available period. F your peer cult club.

 

[mamooth]

The exact opposite happens in climate science.

No, it doesn't. That's denier cult fiction. DearLeaderMcIntyre especially has a documented history of lying about supposedly not getting data he had been given.

You seem rather naive about these things. You don't even entertain the possibility that your cult leaders have played you for a UsefulIdiot and fed you crazy stories. And since your cult forbids you from stepping outside of your cult's reality distortion bubble, you will forever remain blissfully unaware of the real world.

Look at it from a POV of Occams Razor. What does Occams say is more likely to be the case?

A. Secret vast global conspiracy.

B. You messed up.

 

[westwall]

No the reason why there is controversy is because the theory of AGW is dead and buried. A legitimate scientist would have abandoned it and moved on to the next theory. However, the perpetrators of this now fraudulent behavior, are looking at the trillions of dollars they hope to rake in so they have abandoned science and gone all out on the politics and pseudo-science route.

Now it's all about money and power.

Actually, that's not what scientists do.

Also, the irony in this argument is that one of the reasons given by skeptics to question AGW is that the science is not "settled," and that means more funding needed for further study.

You should correct your statement. "That's not what GOOD scientists do". It is now established beyond a doubt that the climatologists are not "good" scientists. Hell, they're not even average scientists. They downright suck.

No, that's not what scientists do. They study the matter further using more data sets and instrumentation, especially given the ironic point by some of their critics that the science isn't "settled" because it's "complex."

Also, you should share peer-reviewed studies that prove that climatologists are not good scientists.

Yes, data sets. Not computer models. The entirety of climatology is based on computer models which ignorant people seem to believe (including and especially climatologists, which is what makes them bad scientists) is data. Computer models are not data. One of the most ridiculous "studies" I have ever seen was a computer model, which ran several computer models together and compared their results. This was considered a great study.

It's farcical the depth to which climatology has dropped.

This is clearly wrong and also a clear misunderstanding of the use of models in science. Models are tools. Every sector of science uses them. Models were used to get us to the Moon, to Mars, and to every other location in the Solar system before we ever left Earth. They are a guide to making comparisons between predictions and observations. They are very useful in that way. They aren't set in stone. And they aren't perfect. No model is.

Models are tools in every science BUT climatology. In climatology they ARE the "science" which is why climatology has failed so miserably. The "scientists" forgot that models aren't data. And when the data began to refute the models they altered the data, which is pure academic fraud.

 

[IanC]

No the reason why there is controversy is because the theory of AGW is dead and buried. A legitimate scientist would have abandoned it and moved on to the next theory. However, the perpetrators of this now fraudulent behavior, are looking at the trillions of dollars they hope to rake in so they have abandoned science and gone all out on the politics and pseudo-science route.

Now it's all about money and power.

Actually, that's not what scientists do.

Also, the irony in this argument is that one of the reasons given by skeptics to question AGW is that the science is not "settled," and that means more funding needed for further study.

You should correct your statement. "That's not what GOOD scientists do". It is now established beyond a doubt that the climatologists are not "good" scientists. Hell, they're not even average scientists. They downright suck.

No, that's not what scientists do. They study the matter further using more data sets and instrumentation, especially given the ironic point by some of their critics that the science isn't "settled" because it's "complex."

Also, you should share peer-reviewed studies that prove that climatologists are not good scientists.

Yes, data sets. Not computer models. The entirety of climatology is based on computer models which ignorant people seem to believe (including and especially climatologists, which is what makes them bad scientists) is data. Computer models are not data. One of the most ridiculous "studies" I have ever seen was a computer model, which ran several computer models together and compared their results. This was considered a great study.

It's farcical the depth to which climatology has dropped.

Actually, both.

Also, climate studies are not based on computer models alone for painfully obvious reasons.

It was never claimed that computer models are data.

Please mention the study, explain how it did not use data, and why you think it represents most studies. Also, refer to several peer-reviewed studies to back your claim.

Finally, you still need to refer to peer-reviewed studies to back your claim that climatologists are not good scientists.

Actually the thread ocean phraud details how a model chucked out past real data and the author went in front of a senate hearing and claimed model data was real.