There is no such thing as "climate science"
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
When did I claim I studied earth sciences? I have a bachelors degree in economics, which is why I defer to experts in fields like this, such as the people who wrote the study that your provided.
Your turn.
In some ways the resorting of the AGW community to threats, dismissals might be a sign of just how discredited their organization has become. Like all cults and bureacracies.. they react to criticism and even to honest inquiry with violent aggression.
The fabric of their 'science' is so manifestly weak and contrived that they know any serious circumspection would tear it to threads. So it is presented as a monolith.. accept it as proven whole without question.. or the consequences of rejecting the 'true faith'.. which is ostracization and isolation.
The fortress mentality... supported by media and academia.. is now acting beleaguered. Its pronouncements have become increasingly desperate, erratic and irrational. Cracks are appearing in the hegemony of consensus.. which was always a fabrication used to cover the tawdry state of its case.. by informing the public they weren't 'smart' enough to understand it.
Science.. or scientific method.. means nothing to the adherents now. Full capitulation is required.. but they are losing their audience. Nothing they say can be trusted.. and all of their dire predictions evaporate in the short term.. hence they place them further and further out in some bleak fantasy future.
The fabric of their 'science' is so manifestly weak and contrived that they know any serious circumspection would tear it to threads. So it is presented as a monolith.. accept it as proven whole without question.. or the consequences of rejecting the 'true faith'.. which is ostracization and isolation.
The fortress mentality... supported by media and academia.. is now acting beleaguered. Its pronouncements have become increasingly desperate, erratic and irrational. Cracks are appearing in the hegemony of consensus.. which was always a fabrication used to cover the tawdry state of its case.. by informing the public they weren't 'smart' enough to understand it.
Science.. or scientific method.. means nothing to the adherents now. Full capitulation is required.. but they are losing their audience. Nothing they say can be trusted.. and all of their dire predictions evaporate in the short term.. hence they place them further and further out in some bleak fantasy future.
Last edited:
So you have a masters degree yet you think you know better than all of these people actually doing research in this area?
Of course I do. I look at the planet as a whole and the geophysical systems to make it hum not the childish one track thinking of GHG alarmists.
Maybe you can explain how exponential increases lead to negatives? How did we lose 0.3C of alleged GHG driven warming? Currently we sit at 0.2C above the 30 year mean after losing 0.3C.
Can you explain this using you knowledge in economics? Probably not because in finance exponential increases never lead to negatives do they?
Yeah buts and side tracking will be considered disqualifiers to your answer so give your all without wavering.
There are no backslides to exponential inputs are there? Do my loan payments drop like that? No because it is impossible.
I don't understand why you think this is an issue. Universities don't usually offer degrees in fluvial geomorpholgy either. Or solid state physics. Or arachnology. That doesn't mean that there aren't scientists studying river structure, solid sate electronics or spiders.
He might have a masters degree, but he doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect. That's about on par with a biologist not buying the whole "evolution" thing, as far as earth science goes.
Economics is not finance, so you seem a bit confused on that one.
Neither you or I are qualified to determine this stuff on our own. These are very complex issues that people dedicate their entire lives to researching. We need to reference the work of these people to find out the answers.
The difference between you and me is that I know what I don't know, but I also know how to find information and answers if need be. You seems caught up in your own hubris and unable to accept reality.
I have to assume that you don't have a degree in reading.
What did I say about sidetracking?
I'll ask again. How do exponential inputs achieve negatives? It's impossible is it not?
Answer the question or take a hike.
I'll ask again. How do exponential inputs achieve negatives? It's impossible is it not?
Answer the question or take a hike.
I have to assume that you don't have a degree in reading.
Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself there. Sometimes when I encounter a thread I haven't read for awhile I go right back to the P.O. to get a handle on it and forget to read some of the consequent posts. But yeah, I can read at an elementary level.
Do you honestly think that asking my opinion on scientific concepts is a reasonable use of time? Remember what I said in the last post, I know what I don't know.
You are not going to alter the accepted body of scientific research by based on how I answer that question. Is your next project to debate physics with english majors in order to prove that E=MC^2 isn't true?
Your beef is with the scientists doing the research, not me.
This seems right in line with the type of crap the scientist int he OP experienced because he didn't agree with the popular group.
If you show up at a medical conference and tell people that you don't believe that penicillin is an antibiotic, then don't expect to be taken seriously by the other doctors. If you show up in a course on relatvitiy and say that you don't buy that whole E=mc^2 business, don't expect to be taken seriously by other scientists.
And in case you think is just us big bad AGW proponents picking on teyh Galileo like skeptics, keep in mind that WUWT (the most popular skeptic website out there) says that the electric universe theory is hooey adn won't discuss it on his site. Roy Spencer--a heavy hitting skeptic scientists--states that he has absolutely no time at all for people who refute the greenhouse theory.