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

[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.

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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

Just because you don't have a High School diploma, and can't even begin to understand the very basics of scientific thought, and processes that govern the material world, doesn't mean we don't. We are quite literally the people who "wrote the book" on the physical world, how the planet operates, how earthquakes occur, and why, the process of plate tectonics and its place in the world and how mankind interacts with it, we are, quite literally, the foundational science.

In fact, one of the principles of geology, "uniformitarianism" has been adopted by all the other sciences.

I see, so then you understand the principles of every field of science. Is that right professor?

What specialities do you think climate scientists have that other fields don't? Besides wonky statistics of course.

 

[jc456]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

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.

so you are against people having an opinion and ideology?

Opinions and ideology have nothing to do with science.

it does if you're trying to get the population to follow your dogma. Seems you forgotten who is impacted, not just scientists. They can grow a pair and stop acting like asses and more like scientists and answer the g. d. questions

 

[jc456]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

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.

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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

here, since I was corrected for saying the same thing on another thread. I found this on a job site and had to admit I was in error. Do the same and move on:

"
Definition and Nature of the Work
Geologists are scientists who study the earth's crust to obtain an accurate picture of its structure, history, and composition. There are many practical uses for the science of geology. Geologists' findings are used in construction, in planning environmental protection measures, and in exploring for sources of coal, metals, petroleum, and natural gas. Geologists work for private industries, the federal government, colleges and universities, and museums.

There are several different kinds of geologists. Mineralogists, for example, study rocks, minerals, and precious stones. They classify them according to their composition and structure. Paleontologists work with biologists to determine what the world was like in prehistoric times. They study fossils and layers of rock. Engineering geologists help to determine where to construct dams, lay pipelines, and build roads. Some geologists also study ecology to incorporate protection of the environment in their work. Other geologists may work with geophysicists to predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Most of the geologists in the United States work in private industry, with the majority employed in the petroleum and natural gas industry. These geologists help find new sources of oil and gas by collecting samples of rock and soil. They compare these samples with rock and soil found near known deposits of crude oil and natural gas. This helps them to select locations for new wells. Because offshore oil resources are one of the main energy supplies of the future, geologists' ability to examine samples taken from the ocean floors is becoming increasingly important. Samples of rock and soil may also be useful to geologists who search for sources of fresh water or deposits of valuable minerals and ores.

Another group of geologists in the United States are teachers or researchers in schools and colleges. In high schools they teach earth science and general science. In colleges most geologists teach introductory and advanced courses in geology. Some also instruct students in ecology and environmental studies. Geologists working for colleges usually divide their time between teaching and research."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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

Just because you don't have a High School diploma, and can't even begin to understand the very basics of scientific thought, and processes that govern the material world, doesn't mean we don't. We are quite literally the people who "wrote the book" on the physical world, how the planet operates, how earthquakes occur, and why, the process of plate tectonics and its place in the world and how mankind interacts with it, we are, quite literally, the foundational science.

In fact, one of the principles of geology, "uniformitarianism" has been adopted by all the other sciences.

I see, so then you understand the principles of every field of science. Is that right professor?

What specialities do you think climate scientists have that other fields don't? Besides wonky statistics of course.

Decline hiding, Ignoring facts, calling skeptics "Deniers!!!"

 

[jc456]

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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

Just because you don't have a High School diploma, and can't even begin to understand the very basics of scientific thought, and processes that govern the material world, doesn't mean we don't. We are quite literally the people who "wrote the book" on the physical world, how the planet operates, how earthquakes occur, and why, the process of plate tectonics and its place in the world and how mankind interacts with it, we are, quite literally, the foundational science.

In fact, one of the principles of geology, "uniformitarianism" has been adopted by all the other sciences.

I see, so then you understand the principles of every field of science. Is that right professor?

What specialities do you think climate scientists have that other fields don't? Besides wonky statistics of course.

Decline hiding, Ignoring facts, calling skeptics "Deniers!!!"

the new liberal arts program

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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

Just because you don't have a High School diploma, and can't even begin to understand the very basics of scientific thought, and processes that govern the material world, doesn't mean we don't. We are quite literally the people who "wrote the book" on the physical world, how the planet operates, how earthquakes occur, and why, the process of plate tectonics and its place in the world and how mankind interacts with it, we are, quite literally, the foundational science.

In fact, one of the principles of geology, "uniformitarianism" has been adopted by all the other sciences.

I see, so then you understand the principles of every field of science. Is that right professor?

What specialities do you think climate scientists have that other fields don't? Besides wonky statistics of course.

Decline hiding, Ignoring facts, calling skeptics "Deniers!!!"

Don't forget, they're even worse at economics than your typical liberal.

 

[asterism]

Look, poor Asterism is crying because he got called out on his conspiracy kookery.

That's the #3 reason why the whole world laughs at the denier cult, their propensity to cry when asked for evidence. The #2 reason would be their dishonesty, and the #1 reason is that their science sucks.

So, Asterism thinks many scientists are part of a plot to discard data, but he says that's not a conspiracy theory. And he links to a conspiracy blogger who invokes another conspiracy blogger, who both claim a conspiracy. But Asterism still pretends he's not invoking a conspiracy.

You can't keep invoking a conspiracy theory and then claim you're not doing it. Sure, you can try, but then people like me justifiably mock you for doing so, and everyone ends up laughing at you.

The bigger point? Denialism is now literally just a conspiracy cult. They literally have nothing now except conspiracy theories.

just so I'm clear, you are against anyone who disagrees with current climate predictions? Just resetting the clock here. You've wandered so much, just wish to maintain the correct comments to you.

It appears that anyone who disagrees with anything put forth by AGW proponents is labeled. The funny part is that Roger Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic. He has repeatedly stated his agreement with the AGW theory, he has just correctly noted some instances where things weren't done correctly.

But that makes him a "conspiracy blogger."

 

[asterism]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

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.

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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......

 

[orogenicman]

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.

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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.

 

[asterism]

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.

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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.

I agree. I just think it's funny that a "warmist" is chastising a "denier" based on his PhD in Geology while other "warmists" insist that their Geology degrees make them extremely qualified to have an authoritative opinion.

 

[asterism]

I don't have a degree in Astronomy but in the classes I give to kids, research projects in which I participate, and outreach events I help coordinate I encounter many Astronomers and Astrophysicists. None of them call me unqualified. My work speaks for itself.

 

[orogenicman]

Look, poor Asterism is crying because he got called out on his conspiracy kookery.

That's the #3 reason why the whole world laughs at the denier cult, their propensity to cry when asked for evidence. The #2 reason would be their dishonesty, and the #1 reason is that their science sucks.

So, Asterism thinks many scientists are part of a plot to discard data, but he says that's not a conspiracy theory. And he links to a conspiracy blogger who invokes another conspiracy blogger, who both claim a conspiracy. But Asterism still pretends he's not invoking a conspiracy.

You can't keep invoking a conspiracy theory and then claim you're not doing it. Sure, you can try, but then people like me justifiably mock you for doing so, and everyone ends up laughing at you.

The bigger point? Denialism is now literally just a conspiracy cult. They literally have nothing now except conspiracy theories.

just so I'm clear, you are against anyone who disagrees with current climate predictions? Just resetting the clock here. You've wandered so much, just wish to maintain the correct comments to you.

It appears that anyone who disagrees with anything put forth by AGW proponents is labeled. The funny part is that Roger Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic. He has repeatedly stated his agreement with the AGW theory, he has just correctly noted some instances where things weren't done correctly.

But that makes him a "conspiracy blogger."

Ahem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr is an American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization [1] in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.

He has a B.S. in mathematics, and a PhD in political science (which is not a scientific discipline).

 

[orogenicman]

I don't have a degree in Astronomy but in the classes I give to kids, research projects in which I participate, and outreach events I help coordinate I encounter many Astronomers and Astrophysicists. None of them call me unqualified. My work speaks for itself.

And yet you are not a degreed or published astronomer, and I suspect that if you called yourself one, other astronomers would take offense regardless of your volunteer work. I am an amateur astronomer myself, and actually own and use a dedicated astrophotography rig. Here are some of my astrophotographs:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[orogenicman]

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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.

I agree. I just think it's funny that a "warmist" is chastising a "denier" based on his PhD in Geology while other "warmists" insist that their Geology degrees make them extremely qualified to have an authoritative opinion.

I don't chastise anyone based on their degree in Geology. I chastise them based on their willful ignorance of the facts. If they are willfully ignorant of the facts, AND have a PhD in geology, that's even worse.

 

[IanC]

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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.

I agree. I just think it's funny that a "warmist" is chastising a "denier" based on his PhD in Geology while other "warmists" insist that their Geology degrees make them extremely qualified to have an authoritative opinion.

I don't chastise anyone based on their degree in Geology. I chastise them based on their willful ignorance of the facts. If they are willfully ignorant of the facts, AND have a PhD in geology, that's even worse.

Which facts? Be specific.

 

[asterism]

Look, poor Asterism is crying because he got called out on his conspiracy kookery.

That's the #3 reason why the whole world laughs at the denier cult, their propensity to cry when asked for evidence. The #2 reason would be their dishonesty, and the #1 reason is that their science sucks.

So, Asterism thinks many scientists are part of a plot to discard data, but he says that's not a conspiracy theory. And he links to a conspiracy blogger who invokes another conspiracy blogger, who both claim a conspiracy. But Asterism still pretends he's not invoking a conspiracy.

You can't keep invoking a conspiracy theory and then claim you're not doing it. Sure, you can try, but then people like me justifiably mock you for doing so, and everyone ends up laughing at you.

The bigger point? Denialism is now literally just a conspiracy cult. They literally have nothing now except conspiracy theories.

just so I'm clear, you are against anyone who disagrees with current climate predictions? Just resetting the clock here. You've wandered so much, just wish to maintain the correct comments to you.

It appears that anyone who disagrees with anything put forth by AGW proponents is labeled. The funny part is that Roger Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic. He has repeatedly stated his agreement with the AGW theory, he has just correctly noted some instances where things weren't done correctly.

But that makes him a "conspiracy blogger."

Ahem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr is an American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization [1] in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.

He has a B.S. in mathematics, and a PhD in political science (which is not a scientific discipline).

True, but he's on your side as a credentialed climate scientist and and AGW proponent.

 

[asterism]

I don't have a degree in Astronomy but in the classes I give to kids, research projects in which I participate, and outreach events I help coordinate I encounter many Astronomers and Astrophysicists. None of them call me unqualified. My work speaks for itself.

And yet you are not a degreed or published astronomer, and I suspect that if you called yourself one, other astronomers would take offense regardless of your volunteer work. I am an amateur astronomer myself, and actually own and use a dedicated astrophotography rig. Here are some of my astrophotographs:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excellent shots! Much better than I can do currently (mostly due to light pollution in Central Florida). You're correct that I would never and should never call myself anything other than amateur, but my credentials are never questioned when I disagree with professional scientists on some of their work.

Early on in the Zooniverse project I questioned the training shots used to identify gravitational lenses, specifically ones that I thought displayed one but the reviewing scientists didn't. I was shown to be correct many times and it was a completely collaborative environment. Nobody was protecting turf and nobody was claiming authority. The times I was correct the response was similar to, "nice catch, buddy," and the times I was incorrect the response was, "a few of us have reviewed it again and we don't see it - what are we missing?"

I have been given time on Slooh and was encouraged to send anything noteworthy to various universities (I never found anything special but it was cool to have control of such a powerful device for a little while). Any time I've asked for original data on astronomic events (supernovae, comets, asteroids, etc.) I've never been told that I don't qualify and therefore cannot have it. In most cases I get a very pleasant response with a link and told to feel free to ask any questions. These are from professional scientists busy conducting their research and yet they always have time to respond.

The exact opposite happens in climate science.

 

[asterism]

I'm a retired PhD geologist, so yes, my opinion matters.

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.

I agree. I just think it's funny that a "warmist" is chastising a "denier" based on his PhD in Geology while other "warmists" insist that their Geology degrees make them extremely qualified to have an authoritative opinion.

I don't chastise anyone based on their degree in Geology. I chastise them based on their willful ignorance of the facts. If they are willfully ignorant of the facts, AND have a PhD in geology, that's even worse.

I don't think you have, I was speaking of Liminal

 

[orogenicman]

Look, poor Asterism is crying because he got called out on his conspiracy kookery.

That's the #3 reason why the whole world laughs at the denier cult, their propensity to cry when asked for evidence. The #2 reason would be their dishonesty, and the #1 reason is that their science sucks.

So, Asterism thinks many scientists are part of a plot to discard data, but he says that's not a conspiracy theory. And he links to a conspiracy blogger who invokes another conspiracy blogger, who both claim a conspiracy. But Asterism still pretends he's not invoking a conspiracy.

You can't keep invoking a conspiracy theory and then claim you're not doing it. Sure, you can try, but then people like me justifiably mock you for doing so, and everyone ends up laughing at you.

The bigger point? Denialism is now literally just a conspiracy cult. They literally have nothing now except conspiracy theories.

just so I'm clear, you are against anyone who disagrees with current climate predictions? Just resetting the clock here. You've wandered so much, just wish to maintain the correct comments to you.

It appears that anyone who disagrees with anything put forth by AGW proponents is labeled. The funny part is that Roger Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic. He has repeatedly stated his agreement with the AGW theory, he has just correctly noted some instances where things weren't done correctly.

But that makes him a "conspiracy blogger."

Ahem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr is an American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization [1] in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.

He has a B.S. in mathematics, and a PhD in political science (which is not a scientific discipline).

True, but he's on your side as a credentialed climate scientist and and AGW proponent.

You should read the article at the link I posted before you make such claims.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't have a degree in Astronomy but in the classes I give to kids, research projects in which I participate, and outreach events I help coordinate I encounter many Astronomers and Astrophysicists. None of them call me unqualified. My work speaks for itself.

And yet you are not a degreed or published astronomer, and I suspect that if you called yourself one, other astronomers would take offense regardless of your volunteer work. I am an amateur astronomer myself, and actually own and use a dedicated astrophotography rig. Here are some of my astrophotographs:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excellent shots! Much better than I can do currently (mostly due to light pollution in Central Florida). You're correct that I would never and should never call myself anything other than amateur, but my credentials are never questioned when I disagree with professional scientists on some of their work.

Early on in the Zooniverse project I questioned the training shots used to identify gravitational lenses, specifically ones that I thought displayed one but the reviewing scientists didn't. I was shown to be correct many times and it was a completely collaborative environment. Nobody was protecting turf and nobody was claiming authority. The times I was correct the response was similar to, "nice catch, buddy," and the times I was incorrect the response was, "a few of us have reviewed it again and we don't see it - what are we missing?"

I have been given time on Slooh and was encouraged to send anything noteworthy to various universities (I never found anything special but it was cool to have control of such a powerful device for a little while). Any time I've asked for original data on astronomic events (supernovae, comets, asteroids, etc.) I've never been told that I don't qualify and therefore cannot have it. In most cases I get a very pleasant response with a link and told to feel free to ask any questions. These are from professional scientists busy conducting their research and yet they always have time to respond.

The exact opposite happens in climate science.

There is a huge difference between what you are doing volunteering your time working with the zooniverse and the utter disrespectful, willfully ignorant behavior of the deniers working against climate scientists. They don't care about the science. That isn't why they do what they do? Their motives are purely political.