Science Returns

Post Reply New Topic

The consensus used to be the opposite on both subjects. That changed by people questioning the consensus.

That changed by peoples providing evidences against the consensus; so where are the evidences refuting global warming strongly enough to go against the many evidences that it do happen? Without evidences all those questioning are only empty words.

The evidence wasn't just put up and then the consensus said "ok you got me". Took a lifetime.

This guy has no degree in climate science. His degrees are in physics and astrophysics, he never studied weather or climate science at school but subjects like superconductivity. Also his opinions on climate change have never been published in any scientific journals. So he's not any kind of climate scientist or expert on climate change.

His opinion does not impact the consensus of climate scientists because he is not among climate scientists to impact the consensus.

Oh so you're informed of what the difference is are you?

An interesting, informative, and amusing video about climate change "hysteria" and "the looming climate apocalypse" and the uniquely American phenomenon of climate change denial:

The top 10 consensus climate change scientists are:

Wallace S. Broecker, PhD (1958) in geology from Columbia University.
James E. Hansen, Master’s degree (1965) in astronomy and a PhD (1967) in physics University of Iowa.
Phil D. Jones, PhD in hydrology (1977) from the Department of Civil Engineering
Syukuro Manabe, PhD in geophysics from the University of Tokyo in 1958.
Michael E. Mann, PhD in geophysics in 1998 from Yale University.
John Francis Brake Mitchell, PhD in theoretical physics (1973) from Queen’s University Belfast.
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, PhD (1974) in planetary atmospheres State University of New York at Stony Brook.
William F. Ruddiman, PhD (1969) in marine geology from Columbia University.
Susan Solomon, PhD (1981) in chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.
Tom M.L. Wigley, PhD (1967) in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide.

As you can see it's a mixed bag of degrees, including physics.

None of them has a "degree in climate change".

I wonder if the people who go on about the 97% of climate chance scientists have even heard of these people or know anything about them.

My guess in 97% of laypeople who believe in climate change science know next to nothing about it, including the journalists who write stories about it.

Is there perhaps a sheeple problem going on? "I read about it and hear bout it, therefore I believe in it, and try to convince others to believe in it, even though I don't really know anything about it".

Don't listen to that man in the video he isn't one of us BAAAA.

I didn't say a degree in climate change, I said a degree in climate science

I'm sure a lot of those people didn't specify in climate science for their degrees, but they likely still took climate science courses and have published their work on climate science in scientific journals if they are considered experts in the field, unlike the guy in the video who didn't study it and hasn't been published and isn't considered an expert in the field of climate science.

As for the rest of what you said, you're getting really repetitive, and repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make you any more correct in what you're saying--it just makes people less likely to listen to you. Your strategy to convince people of things by parroting the same few phrases over and over again is self-defeating.

Regardless, you specified the necessity of a deree in climate science, when none of the consensus climate change scientists have one. You said having a degree in physics doesn't count, when there are climate change scientists who have a degree in physics.

And how do you know what Piers Corbyn has studied? Did you know he began recording weather and climate patterns 66 years ago at the age of five?

You have this attitude that science has to be compartmentalized, and no scientist who doesn't call themselves a "climate change scientist" can talk about climate science.

It's like Jehovah Witnesses refusing to even consider anything outside of Jehovah's Witnessism.

You have that backwards. Unlike climate change proselytizers, I don't a have strategy or agenda to convince people of things by parroting the same few scripted phrases over and over again.

Last edited by EzraS on 21 Feb 2019, 12:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ironic, considering you yourself argue that others cannot possibly posses abc or xyz knowledge because they don’t have a specific credential.

Isn't it? It's almost like he's constantly moving the goalposts in any conversation you have with him. Or something.

They can possess knowledge but they're still amateurs.

No that's goldfish objecting to the fact that I've pointed out he has no degree in science, medicine, psychology etc to back up his claim that he discovered the cause of autism and discovered the ultimate treatment for it based on his amateur self diagnosis.

First of all, can you provide a source for the list you gave so we can see what criteria they used to decide who are the leading experts? Because my guess is that they are considered experts because they've studied climate science for a while (because climate science includes fields like geology and meteorology and some of the other fields in which the people you listed have degrees in, if your list is accurate) and they have done studies on the subject whose findings have been published in peer reviewed journals and whose findings have been repeated by other studies and therefore are further supported by more evidence of their findings being an accurate description of reality. That other guy hasn't published whatever he may have studied or researched in climate science in a journal so his peers can review and repeat his results, so I have no reason to listen to anything he might say on climate science.

And yet here you are, parroting the same few phrases of your unsupported opinion about climate "proselytizers" over and over again while simultaneously claiming that's not what you're doing in the same breath.

I never used the phrase "climate change scientist", so you putting that in quotes as if you are quoting me saying that is disingenuous argument and a misrepresentation of what I was arguing (which you seem fond of).

But go on, keep repeating yourself. It's entertaining.

Why would climate change science journals let someone publish something that doesn't fit in with their narrative? Can you point out any scientist who's been allowed to do so? And why do you need me to cite a source? Is it that you rely on what climate change scientists say without even knowing who they are?

Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.

No I am not quoting you when I write "climate change scientist" unless you're saying you coined the term.