Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[jc456]

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

Well appreciate the description. Ok, i'll give you life perhaps, but what and where does life begin is still unknown and to make any other declaration is flat out a lie. So I ask again, if the start of life is unknown, then how can one argue against an opposing view? simple question. And climate is not understood, and to say otherwise doesn't make you a very good scientist IMO. I don't think you could honestly tell me that science is ever settled if you are indeed a scientist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is exactly what deniers do. Congratulations, we are getting somewhere.

Why do you say "deniers?" Isn't "infidel" the proper term?

You cultists with your absurd dogma are caught lying regularly.

Here are the top 10 lies by the Cult.

Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You - Forbes

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

True, and at first I was hesitant that pointing this out about you was rude.

Ah but grants are far too important to let a little thing like ethics get in the way...

 

[Uncensored2008]

All of you cultists have a duty to stop your carbon sins. When you sin against Gaia, she becomes angry and punishes the Earth with global warming, so the cultists have duty to stop carbon sinning; and I can help.

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!

 

[orogenicman]

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

Well appreciate the description. Ok, i'll give you life perhaps, but what and where does life begin is still unknown and to make any other declaration is flat out a lie. So I ask again, if the start of life is unknown, then how can one argue against an opposing view? simple question. And climate is not understood, and to say otherwise doesn't make you a very good scientist IMO. I don't think you could honestly tell me that science is ever settled if you are indeed a scientist.

Look, there are many things we DO know and understand about life. That necessarily limits the probabilities as to how life on Earth began. For instance, it is a safe bet that it wasn't created out of clay by some magical sky daddy. It is also a safe bet that this magical sky daddy didn't create the universe in 6 days. Moreover, the fact that proteins necessary for life can spontaneous form in certain environments similar to those that existed on Earth many billions of years ago is just one indication of how life could have started. It has also been discovered recently that certain types of DNA fragments can form spontaneously under the right conditions. The fact that complex organic molecules requisite for life have been seen on comets, and even in stellar nurseries is yet another. It is true that there is a lot we have yet discovered about how life began, but that is not a reason to ignore what we DO know, and from which we can make predictions for further testing.

Same for our climate. It is a very complex, often chaotic system. There are things we simply don't understand yet. But that is no excuse to willfully ignore what we DO know and understand, the predictions we can make and test.

 

[orogenicman]

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

True, and at first I was hesitant that pointing this out about you was rude.

Ah but grants are far too important to let a little thing like ethics get in the way...

<eyes roll>

 

[orogenicman]

All of you cultists have a duty to stop your carbon sins. When you sin against Gaia, she becomes angry and punishes the Earth with global warming, so the cultists have duty to stop carbon sinning; and I can help.

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!

Straw man. And you call yourself a scientist. HA!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Straw man. And you call yourself a scientist. HA!

Well, I follow the scientific method - you really wouldn't understand...

 

[orogenicman]

Straw man. And you call yourself a scientist. HA!

Well, I follow the scientific method - you really wouldn't understand...

You're right. I don't understand how you could possibly call anything you've posted as following "the scientific method". As far as I can tell, all you've done is to post insulting and incorrect denial talking points. You've not presented anything that could remotely be considered science.

 

[IanC]

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

 

[orogenicman]

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

 

[Marxist]

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

Just repost this everytime a denier tries to claim to know anything about science.

 

[rdean]

Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?

Could you be a little more specific?

 

[IanC]

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

There early 2000's flipped the null hypothesis. No MWP or LIA. Ever since they have had to retreat. Or the warming of 0.2C per decade of warming (and much warmer in most projections) which is not in evidence.

It is not that skeptics deny CO2 influence, CO2 production, or warming in general. It is the wild eyed predictions that fail to happen that we deny.

Just because you guys are finding 'reasons' to claw back your doomsday scenarios that doesn't make you right. We were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you.

 

[orogenicman]

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

There early 2000's flipped the null hypothesis. No MWP or LIA. Ever since they have had to retreat. Or the warming of 0.2C per decade of warming (and much warmer in most projections) which is not in evidence.

It is not that skeptics deny CO2 influence, CO2 production, or warming in general. It is the wild eyed predictions that fail to happen that we deny.

Just because you guys are finding 'reasons' to claw back your doomsday scenarios that doesn't make you right. We were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you.

Who is "we", Ian? I haven't seen you publish any results. So what is it, exactly, that you are trying to take credit for?

 

[jc456]

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

1. No skeptic is saying debates are settled on forums.
2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.
3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model. how unscientific is that? I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.
4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong? oops they made a mistake. Is a scientist big enough to admit an error. Not in climatesville baby.
5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.
6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk. how flippin looney is that. grow a pair and get on with the debate.
7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.

edit *. Political agenda, what is it do skeptics believe is our advantage by having an opposing view. what is it we gain? What? please what is so special that you believe we're after?

Thanks and have a nice day!

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
You're right. I don't understand how you could possibly call anything you've posted as following "the scientific method". As far as I can tell, all you've done is to post insulting and incorrect denial talking points. You've not presented anything that could remotely be considered science.

What I post in these threads is mostly mocking you anti-science AGW cultists with your rigid dogma and disdain for curiosity and discovery.

You are welcome to your silly little religion, and I will be happy to mock you for it.

 

[orogenicman]

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

1. No skeptic is saying debates are settled on forums.

Except that is exclusively where you deniers (you are NOT scientific skeptics) choose to settle the issue.

2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.

Experiments have been presented numerous times. For you to declare that they haven't been presented is disingenuous, at best.

3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model. how unscientific is that? I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.

Wrong, and for you to continue to make this claim despite the numerous times you've been corrected on the matter demonstrates that you aren't interested in discussion.

4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong?

The scientists in the relevant field in question. What? You thought diesel mechanics should have a say in how climate science should be conducted? Bhwhahahahaha!

5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.

Skeptics involved in the science do know more than deniers. And I agree that you deniers need to stop fudging data and misrepresenting the science if you want to be taken seriously.

6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk. how flippin looney is that. grow a pair and get on with the debate.

Next time you need brain surgery, you should hire a floor sweeper, because surely he knows as much about brain surgery as a real brain surgeon. <rolls eyes>

7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[IanC]

I was wrong, admit it. A geologist can call themselves what ever they want. Scientist example. Funny though. It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field. How about data management, evolution. Nope....

Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist. Same for a chemist or a biologist. But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field. People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand. I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks. I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion. Geology is the study of the Earth. By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.

It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades.

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?

Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates. You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general. You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own. Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field. Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others. The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense. The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda. Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy". And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.

There early 2000's flipped the null hypothesis. No MWP or LIA. Ever since they have had to retreat. Or the warming of 0.2C per decade of warming (and much warmer in most projections) which is not in evidence.

It is not that skeptics deny CO2 influence, CO2 production, or warming in general. It is the wild eyed predictions that fail to happen that we deny.

Just because you guys are finding 'reasons' to claw back your doomsday scenarios that doesn't make you right. We were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you.

Who is "we", Ian? I haven't seen you publish any results. So what is it, exactly, that you are trying to take credit for?

You post up your publications first.

 

[orogenicman]

[
You're right. I don't understand how you could possibly call anything you've posted as following "the scientific method". As far as I can tell, all you've done is to post insulting and incorrect denial talking points. You've not presented anything that could remotely be considered science.

What I post in these threads is mostly mocking you anti-science AGW cultists with your rigid dogma and disdain for curiosity and discovery.

You are welcome to your silly little religion, and I will be happy to mock you for it.

Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.