“Climate Science” unlike real science is not based on actual evidence and proof but on consensus and models designed to produce a desired outcome along with selectively picked and manipulated data.
1 Like
Only a “theory”. Ok.
No, data excluding the AGW period is useless unless you compare to the warming period.
Your uninformed opinion is noted.
Condescension and snobbery rolled up in tantrum noted.
I’m not the one pretending to have knowledge on par with the scientists who have dedicated their educations and careers to the study of the climate. Tell us more how scientists have failed to consider sunspots (for example) while you have (despite you never showing a single calculation…ever).
1 Like
I’m not pretending anything. You attack me personally because you cannot refute the points I’m making.
I responded to your personal attack and nothing I said was in error. You have far less education and experience in climate related sciences than climate scientists. You have never published a single paper on the subject. I have never seen you provide any calculations to support your assertions. In light of those facts, I can’t see why we should take your assertions seriously on this subject.
That being said, in your areas of personal knowledge I believe and respect your posts. Items related to the military and related histories you seem quite knowledgeable, for example.
I’m a trained scientist which puts me one up on you. I understand good science and recognize bad science which puts me another up on you.
I recognize the limitations in what is known and the infective bias prevalent in the global warming panic mongering. That puts me way ahead of you.
I have explained the problems numerous times and all you can do is launch personal attacks in reply, that’s your problem, not mine.
Remember the Polar Bear hysteria? This is current.
The problem with the Polar Bears is over population. When predator populations exceed the available prey population slow starvation, disease, even cannibalism take over followed by a rapid die off.
As a matter of interest, and it is entirely your prerogative whether you answer or no, what particular area of science were you trained in?
Biology and Wildlife Science which included a lot of Environmental Science coursework.
Thanks. Wildlife science; any particular country or area?
Wildlife and Fisheries Management. That was after 3.5 years of Pre Med/Pre Vet.
Thanks for your answer.
Your opinion is noted. The problems you have explained have been addressed numerous times.
I’m more of a Physics, Math models, Solid Mechanics kind of guy. I did have a grad class in environmental science where we made mathematical models of environmental systems. I recall modeling the pollution from a highway, as one example.
No you either dismiss them or just make claims you can’t support as to the accuracy of the numbers.
That makes you a math guy, not a scientist and you don’t appear to even be able to recognize good science from bad.
