So how much money do those evil conniving climate scientists make anyway?

[Oddball]

Scientific method knows about science

Which people know the most about science?

Again, the appeal to authority.

If they know so much about science, why is there no actual scientific method to their "science"?

 

[Muhammed]

Running a global conspiracy must be a pretty high paying gig, right?

Climate Scientist average salary is $71,505, median salary is $82,514 with a salary range from $48,000 to $84,000.

Oh, shit!

$48,000 to $84,000!

They DEFINITELY entered that profession for those giant fucking dollars signs and not because they love science, am I right? They're making as much money as public school teachers! YOWZA!!!

And if they say there is no CAGW, their position is not needed at all.

 

[cnm]

How many people have ever said they want to go into climate science for the money? Probably zero.

'Doing it for the grant money' is an assertion I have often seen on this message board.

 

[Confounding]

Again, the appeal to authority.

Yes well they are the authority after all, and for a reason. I think their opinions are pretty relevant. Probably more relevant than your opinion.

 

[cnm]

AGW is quite falsifiable as a scientific theory. For instance all one has to do is falsify the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how no one's done that. You'd think that would be right up the alley of a scientific shibboleth destroyer like Oddball who knows scientists are lying and who disdains appeals to authority. Well, except to the authority which says climate scientists are lying.

 

[cnm]

If they know so much about science, why is there no actual scientific method to their "science"?

Begging the question must have been taught in Weasel Words 101.

 

[Oddball]

Again, the appeal to authority.

Yes well they are the authority after all, and for a reason. I think their opinions are pretty relevant. Probably more relevant than your opinion.

"Authorities" who have no scientific method in their "science".

All that makes you is an unthinking follower....A lemming.

 

[Oddball]

If they know so much about science, why is there no actual scientific method to their "science"?

Begging the question must have been taught in Weasel Words 101.

I've repeatedly listed five traditionally accepted elements of scientific method that are nowhere to be found on the "science", Corky....Something that you warmer cultists continue to ignore, so that you can keep you cognitive dissonance alive...That's not me begging questions, that's you refusing to face facts.

 

[jc456]

Running a global conspiracy must be a pretty high paying gig, right?

Climate Scientist average salary is $71,505, median salary is $82,514 with a salary range from $48,000 to $84,000.

Oh, shit!

$48,000 to $84,000!

They DEFINITELY entered that profession for those giant fucking dollars signs and not because they love science, am I right? They're making as much money as public school teachers! YOWZA!!!

what did they spend? D'OH!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

AGW is quite falsifiable as a scientific theory. For instance all one has to do is falsify the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how no one's done that. You'd think that would be right up the alley of a scientific shibboleth destroyer like Oddball who knows scientists are lying and who disdains appeals to authority. Well, except to the authority which says climate scientists are lying.

You are truly missing the point Oddball makes here, the total ABSENCE of The Scientific Method, where you actually have to make TESTABLE Hypothesis is obviously MISSING in AGW conjecture which are mostly based on unverified climate modeling runs and emission scenarios, that runs to year 2100.

Here is what The Scientific Method is about:

"I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."

Expansion mine

The AGW conjecture has already failed due to the few short term prediction/projection made since 1990 that never succeeds, also the projected "hot spot" remains missing since it hasn't done the warming at all. This means the AGW conjecture is disproved, and should have been left behind.

The Scientific Method doesn't exist with you and your dumb AGW followers, because AGW believers use unverified climate models as their "science", it is truly amazing that you have become a real denier of validated science research.

 

[Oddball]

AGW is quite falsifiable as a scientific theory. For instance all one has to do is falsify the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how no one's done that. You'd think that would be right up the alley of a scientific shibboleth destroyer like Oddball who knows scientists are lying and who disdains appeals to authority. Well, except to the authority which says climate scientists are lying.

No, it's not falsifiable....Every time there's an odd weather event, bedwetters like you go running around screeching "THE GREAT CLIMATIC GOOGLY-MOOGLY IS COMING TO GET US!!"

Too hot?...Global warming.
Too cold?...Global warming.
Drought?...Global warming.
Deluge?...Global warming.
Too much snow?...Global warming.
Too little snow?..Global warming.
Earthquake?...Global warming.
Wife frigid?...Global warming.
Dogs and cats living together?...Global warming.

Or, to put another way, what weather/climate event and/or anomaly can't be blamed on Goebbels warming?....Like, none.

That's classic unfalsifiability.

 

[Marion Morrison]

C'mon, Corky, dazzle us all with your scientific acumen.

I don't have to. People far more knowledgeable and qualified than us have already given their input on the matter. Almost all of them have come to a similar conclusion.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. Fail.

"argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it."


Common fallacies

 

[jc456]

Not too shabby for producing absolutely nothing that others would freely buy.

That is incredibly shabby for people that allegedly fly around in their private jets and lie about the climate.

Again, how much are the charlatans at the top making?.....Throwing in the A-ball bus leaguers to try and average out the salaries of the big leaguers is a shitty and deceitful way to try to make a point.

It's the every day climate scientists that are doing the work and writing the reports.

what are they spending?

 

[Oddball]

AGW is quite falsifiable as a scientific theory. For instance all one has to do is falsify the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how no one's done that. You'd think that would be right up the alley of a scientific shibboleth destroyer like Oddball who knows scientists are lying and who disdains appeals to authority. Well, except to the authority which says climate scientists are lying.

You are truly missing the point Oddball makes here, the total ABSENCE of The Scientific Method, where you actually have to make TESTABLE Hypothesis is obviously MISSING in AGW conjecture which are mostly based on unverified climate modeling runs and emission scenarios, that runs to year 2100.

Here is what The Scientific Method is about:

"I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."

Expansion mine

The AGW conjecture has already failed due to the few short term prediction/projection made since 1990 that never succeeds, also the projected "hot spot" remains missing since it hasn't done the warming at all. This means the AGW conjecture is disproved, and should have been left behind.

The Scientific Method doesn't exist with you and your dumb AGW followers, because AGW believers use unverified climate models as their "science", it is truly amazing that you have become a real denier of validated science research.

 

[Marion Morrison]

AGW is quite falsifiable as a scientific theory. For instance all one has to do is falsify the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how no one's done that. You'd think that would be right up the alley of a scientific shibboleth destroyer like Oddball who knows scientists are lying and who disdains appeals to authority. Well, except to the authority which says climate scientists are lying.

You are truly missing the point Oddball makes here, the total ABSENCE of The Scientific Method, where you actually have to make TESTABLE Hypothesis is obviously MISSING in AGW conjecture which are mostly based on unverified climate modeling runs and emission scenarios, that runs to year 2100.

Here is what The Scientific Method is about:

"I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."

Expansion mine

The AGW conjecture has already failed due to the few short term prediction/projection made since 1990 that never succeeds, also the projected "hot spot" remains missing since it hasn't done the warming at all. This means the AGW conjecture is disproved, and should have been left behind.

The Scientific Method doesn't exist with you and your dumb AGW followers, because AGW believers use unverified climate models as their "science", it is truly amazing that you have become a real denier of validated science research.

View attachment 249741

Yeah...that purple part is bullshit!

 

[Confounding]

Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right.

No, but I think nobody is more likely to get it right than the scientists because they are the most educated.

 

[Crick]

Argument by Authority is perfectly valid if the authority is an actual expert on the topic under discussion

 

[Confounding]

It is perfectly reasonable for me to appeal to authority in this matter.

 

[Oddball]

Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right.

No, but I think nobody is more likely to get it right than the scientists because they are the most educated.

A few days ago he says he doesn't believe that the "experts" are infallible...Only to spend the following days arguing for the infallibility of them .

TFF!

 

[Oddball]

It is perfectly reasonable for me to appeal to authority in this matter.