Originally posted by C Hess
To be perfectly honest I don't know much about global warming, but are you
sure you can find climatologists on either side of the fence?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Meteorologist are not climatologists.

Originally posted by C Hess
To be perfectly honest I don't know much about global warming, but are you
sure you can find climatologists on either side of the fence?

you may not much about global warming but, I bet compared to him, you, in effect, you can understand one hell of a lot more than he does about it simply because at least you know what science actually is!

There is an extremely tiny crank minority of climatologists that both don't adhere to scientific method and deny global warming (less than 10% of them and the exact percentage depending on how exactly you define a global warming 'denier'. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ) -the rest of the climatologists which make up the overwhelming majority don't deny global warming.

In every profession, and unfortunately for science this includes science, you get a minority within that profession that don't conform to the most basic principles of that profession. That means, in the case of science, you get a minority with science that don't conform to scientific method and who either cherry pick data or distort data or ignore relevant data to twist their conclusion to fit with whatever they want to believe to be true -which is both the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do in science and exactly what the likes of the Creationists do all the time. This tiny minority of so-called 'scientists' that don't adhere to scientific method often give science a bad reputation it ill deserves and should be officially stripped of their official and currently legal entitlement to be called 'scientist'. In other words, they should be outlawed from science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Maybe what we've got here is a deeply rooted distrust in science. Normally one doesn't
trust the amateur over the expert, but maybe you do, in which case all your rants against
scientific theories that disagree with your world view makes perfect sense... from your
perspective.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Meteorologist are not climatologists.

So what? They study and predict the weather.

Originally posted by C Hess
Maybe what we've got here is a deeply rooted distrust in science. Normally one doesn't
trust the amateur over the expert, but maybe you do, in which case all your rants against
scientific theories that disagree with your world view makes perfect sense... from your
perspective.

I was given this special ability to feel heat and cold, which some are apparently lacking.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So what? They study and predict the weather.

A medical doctor studies the treatment of disease using medicines, does that make him
qualified to speak on the finer points of the chemistry used to produce those medicines? I
think you can see the point.

Originally posted by C Hess
A medical doctor studies the treatment of disease using medicines, does that make him
qualified to speak on the finer points of the chemistry used to produce those medicines? I
think you can see the point.

That would depend on his knowledge and reasoning ability.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That would depend on his knowledge and reasoning ability.

Yes, but before you as a layman takes him seriously on the topic of chemistry he would
have to have demonstrated to other competent chemists that he knows what he's talking
about. It's called holding a scientific degree in the given field.

Originally posted by humy
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html

"...An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, ...[text shortened]... arming deniers would, of course, not use any such formal logic or at least apply it incorrectly.

The IPCC reports omit scientific data. In other words, they cherry pick data to support their theory. As long as funding goes to those that cherry pick data and not to those who don't, flawed results will prevail over unbiased science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/01/ipcc-finds-the-important-natural-climate-driver-solar-surface-radiation-intensity-but-then-ignores-and-buries-it/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The IPCC reports omit scientific data. In other words, they cherry pick data to support their theory. As long as funding goes to those that cherry pick data and not to those who don't, flawed results will prevail over unbiased science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique ...[text shortened]... portant-natural-climate-driver-solar-surface-radiation-intensity-but-then-ignores-and-buries-it/

No, that is what climate denialists do.

Go be a bat sh|t crazy conspiracy nut somewhere else.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, that is what climate denialists do.

Go be a bat sh|t crazy conspiracy nut somewhere else.

No, that is what people like you do.

It is interesting that you call me a conspiracy theorist when you are one yourself. You believe there is a conspiracy to suppress solar energy by fossil fuel energy companies.

It is called psychological projection. It could just be simple hypocrisy though. Can you explain why I should believe your conspiracy theory and why nobody should believe mine? You have not disproved any of the claims the links I provided made. You are simply being...well, a denier and nothing more. How about facts for a change?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No, that is what people like you do.

It is interesting that you call me a conspiracy theorist when you are one yourself. You believe there is a conspiracy to suppress solar energy by fossil fuel energy companies.

It is called psychological projection. It could just be simple hypocrisy though. Can you explain why I should believe your conspiracy the ...[text shortened]... ided made. You are simply being...well, a denier and nothing more. How about facts for a change?

http://theenergycollective.com/gcooperrfa/227356/busting-big-oil-myths-renewable-fuel-standard-part-i

And, even if none of the above is true, the fact remains, conspiracy or no conspiracy, it is a scientific fact that the CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere must be, according to basic physics, causing warming. I should know; I have studied and learned the physics at university level.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The IPCC reports omit scientific data. In other words, they cherry pick data to support their theory. As long as funding goes to those that cherry pick data and not to those who don't, flawed results will prevail over unbiased science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique ...[text shortened]... portant-natural-climate-driver-solar-surface-radiation-intensity-but-then-ignores-and-buries-it/

The IPCC reports omit scientific data.

-not relevant data that could have rationally changed the conclusions.
Selecting only the relevant data, i.e. only that which could have a baring on the conclusions, is not "cherry picking". "cherry picking" is what the climate deniers do to justify the conclusion they want to be true. I (and presumably most scientists ) don't WANT the global warming hypothesis to be true -for if it is true then that is bad news and certainly not good news for me personally. how would I benefit from global warming? if anything, I know I may actually be harmed by it. But I believe it because that is just where the evidence points when you don't cherry pick to get the conclusion I and you want. If I did cherry pick data, I would CERTAINLY be a climate denier just like you!

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, but before you as a layman takes him seriously on the topic of chemistry he would
have to have demonstrated to other competent chemists that he knows what he's talking
about. It's called holding a scientific degree in the given field.

I am able to take him seriously with or without the scientific degree, if he makes good common sense. One can be an educated idiot like Jerry Coyne.