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

[ralfy]

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.

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.

 

[ralfy]

Related:

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

 

[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.

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

Which article, the Wikipedia page?

 

[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.

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.

I disagree. There has been a large political movement to discredit anything that shows the Earth is less than 6000 years old. And yet the data is still available. Assuming all skeptics are motivated by politics is foolish. Why would I more or less agree on all other fields of science? I'm libertarian and I'm a realist. I don't have a political agenda informing my views.

The AGW issue is not political to me and I don't think it's some sort of grand conspiracy. I think some initial incompetence with programming and data analysis has been turned into a battle of egos. It happens in other fields too, just not with so much willful ignorance.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Which article, the Wikipedia page?

Yes. Duh.

 

[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.

I disagree. There has been a large political movement to discredit anything that shows the Earth is less than 6000 years old. And yet the data is still available.

WTF? What data, where? Anyone who believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old is a moron. That's not a politica statement. It is a statement of fact.

]Assuming all skeptics are motivated by politics is foolish. Why would I more or less agree on all other fields of science? I'm libertarian and I'm a realist. I don't have a political agenda informing my views.

I never said all skeptics are motivated by politics. But climate deniers aren't skeptics. And they certainly are motivated by politics. Do a running tally for the number of times deniers in this very forum have referred to those who support AGW as "leftists" and "commies", and shriek "Al Gore" every chance they get.

 

[asterism]

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.

Which article, the Wikipedia page?

Yes. Duh.

No page there.

Roger A. Pielke, Jr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look for Roger A. Pielke, Jr on one of Wikipedia's sister projects:
Wiktionary (free dictionary)
Wikibooks (free textbooks)
Wikiquote (quotations)
Wikisource (free library)
Wikiversity (free learning resources)
Commons (images and media)
Wikivoyage (free travel guide)
Wikinews (free news source)
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Roger A. Pielke, Jr in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Log in or create an account to start the Roger A. Pielke, Jr article, alternatively use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.
• Search for "Roger A. Pielke, Jr" in existing articles.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

• If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
• Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
• If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?.

 

[asterism]

Nevermind, found it (the link doesn't work but I found it searching google).

Nothing in it disproves my point. He's a climatologist and he's a proponent of AGW.

He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."[9]

 

[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.

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.

I disagree. There has been a large political movement to discredit anything that shows the Earth is less than 6000 years old. And yet the data is still available.

WTF? What data, where? Anyone who believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old is a moron. That's not a politica statement. It is a statement of fact.

]Assuming all skeptics are motivated by politics is foolish. Why would I more or less agree on all other fields of science? I'm libertarian and I'm a realist. I don't have a political agenda informing my views.

I never said all skeptics are motivated by politics. But climate deniers aren't skeptics. And they certainly are motivated by politics. Do a running tally for the number of times deniers in this very forum have referred to those who support AGW as "leftists" and "commies", and shriek "Al Gore" every chance they get.

And yet you're only the second to mention him in this thread.

 

[orogenicman]

Nevermind, found it (the link doesn't work but I found it searching google).

Nothing in it disproves my point. He's a climatologist and he's a proponent of AGW.

He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."[9]

No he is not. He has a B.S. in mathematics, a M.A. in public policy, and a PhD in political science. He is not a climatologist.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

I disagree. There has been a large political movement to discredit anything that shows the Earth is less than 6000 years old. And yet the data is still available.

WTF? What data, where? Anyone who believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old is a moron. That's not a politica statement. It is a statement of fact.

]Assuming all skeptics are motivated by politics is foolish. Why would I more or less agree on all other fields of science? I'm libertarian and I'm a realist. I don't have a political agenda informing my views.

I never said all skeptics are motivated by politics. But climate deniers aren't skeptics. And they certainly are motivated by politics. Do a running tally for the number of times deniers in this very forum have referred to those who support AGW as "leftists" and "commies", and shriek "Al Gore" every chance they get.

And yet you're only the second to mention him in this thread.

Don't be obtuse.

 

[asterism]

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.

I disagree. There has been a large political movement to discredit anything that shows the Earth is less than 6000 years old. And yet the data is still available.

WTF? What data, where? Anyone who believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old is a moron. That's not a politica statement. It is a statement of fact.

]Assuming all skeptics are motivated by politics is foolish. Why would I more or less agree on all other fields of science? I'm libertarian and I'm a realist. I don't have a political agenda informing my views.

I never said all skeptics are motivated by politics. But climate deniers aren't skeptics. And they certainly are motivated by politics. Do a running tally for the number of times deniers in this very forum have referred to those who support AGW as "leftists" and "commies", and shriek "Al Gore" every chance they get.

And yet you're only the second to mention him in this thread.

Don't be obtuse.

Touche.

Pielke is not a skeptic and even he sees the unique dynamic in the climate change policy debate. He's being labeled as a "denier" even though he's only pointing out some errors on the edges. It has gone tribal at this point and that's not a good environment for the actual science to thrive and get it mostly correct.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you have political figures calling for prosecution of scientists because they based an article on evidence they have observed, yes, it goes tribal. The denialists even went to the point of assigning a censor to 'correct' Dr. James Hansen's work at NASA. A journalism school dropout. Only when Dr. Hansen spoke of it on in an international forum did anyone move to change that abysmal attempt at scientific censorship.

So, now the scientists are fighting back. Is there some overreaction? Yes, of course, scientists are human beings. But when you see what the denialists are saying and doing, you cannot help but wonder how anyone with a brain cannot see that these people have no evidence or truth in what they state.

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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 seem you like to post that statement like you have it. So let's see it.

Einstein was a Newtonian gravity DENIER!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

^ Used Climate Change model to build a rocket

 

[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.

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.