Confounding
Gold Member
- Jan 31, 2016
- 7,073
- 1,551
- 280
- Banned
- #421
one of us is educated, and has a grasp on the science...the other is not
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
one of us is educated, and has a grasp on the science...the other is not
Funny you turn to flacalten.
he is unsure how his home depot infrared thermometer works...
Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...
The most educated people that actually do real career work with the subject matter are the ones most qualified to discuss it.
If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.
Therein lies the issue. Where is the consensus? Upon what is the general agreement? CO2 must have an impact on climate? Yes everyone agrees. CO2 is the main driver of climate> Not so much. We're all going to die? Not so much.Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!
It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.
For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?
I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.
You don't seem to understand science. The onus is upon those that make claims. According to the global warming community, the Earth is warming, man made emissions are to blame and the results will be catastrophic.If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.
Who are the people bringing new and groundbreaking information to the table to dispute the AGW consensus? I would like to see the names of and learn more about the opinions of these climate scientists.
According to the global warming community, the Earth is warming,
man made emissions are to blame
If that were a factual statement the science of geology would still be mired in pre plate tectonic theory of a slowly shrinking Earth.
Who are the people bringing new and groundbreaking information to the table to dispute the AGW consensus? I would like to see the names of and learn more about the opinions of these climate scientists.
You, of all people, have no business criticizing others for not responding.See my post above Bullwinkle
It's good to see you do more than try to undermine my defense of science and scientists.
Jim Hansen??? Is that YOU??? We've missed your fairy tales buddy
You agreed earlier when I stated that I'm not an alarmist. Why not respond to the rest of my post?
THIS ONE STATEMENT proves you know nothing about science.AGW skeptics need do some legwork and bring something new to the table that actually disputes the claims of the scientific community.
The High Priests of your cult certainly do appreciate your passionate ass-licking.Actually you haven't done that either....anyone with a degree in any hard sceince, and most with a degree in any soft science, and many with no scientific degree at all but a degree in a field that can be applied to a science are more than qualified to be a climate scientist...You seem to have assigned climate scientists with godlike qualities...they aren't gods...and they don't hold any special knowledge...
The most educated people that actually do real career work with the subject matter are the ones most qualified to discuss it.
You damn dishonest piece of shit. You haven't answered a question in this whole thread.Take some time to email a few of them
Do you believe that most of them would say AGW is a hoax with no evidence to support it? I am asking you a clear question. Are you capable of giving a clear answer?
"You'd know the secrets of the Inner Temple if you were a member of the cult."as if they had some special scientific knowledge that only they were capable of understanding.
You'd have that knowledge too if you were a practicing climate scientist.
Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.I already had it back when...
Bullshit.
You are not a practicing climate scientist. A few articles you read and graphs that you saw cannot bridge the gap between you and people that study this for a living.
Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.
You're not a scientist. Neither are you educated.one of us is educated, and has a grasp on the science...the other is not
You have none of the former, and no justification for the latter. Yet, oddly, you claim the authority to discard the opinions of working scientists.Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.
I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.
Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.
I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.
Well, in his defense, I must say it's because there are none.Nope, no self-respect at all. Pathetic.
I think you're confusing self-respect with arrogance.
And yet, here you are projecting yet again. You have been challenged to bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument to refute our assertions.
You have failed to do so.
Why?
bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument
bring forth a SCIENTIFIC argument
That's not my job. Why are you making it my responsibility to educate you?
Anyway the argument I've presented is enough. The vast majority of practicing climate scientists disagree with your assertions. Is it possible you're missing some knowledge and context compared to somebody that studies the climate professionally?