Actually, I'm qualified, my degree is in engineering, and statistics, so I know when someone is lying to me mathematically. Also, I'm more qualified than Bill Nye.



But for you, explain why a settled science has models, where almost all are horribly dead wrong. If you flew an ILS, and when you broke out at DH, you were 6 miles off the runway, would you say it's settled that the ILS is accurate?

http://i65.tinypic.com/r9fztu.jpg

Finally proof the earth is flat!!!! Thank you

Yep, I also have a BS in engineering, and extensive training in statistics. I leave the physics to the physicists.

You're actually making the claim that the scientists are lying to you?

Your picture appears to show climate measurements versus models. Yet the temperatures appear to be rising.

Maybe you could explain the relevance of the picture.

And even if the inaccuracy of the models wasn't taken into account, which it is, maybe you would explain how rapidly increasing carbon dioxide concentration isn't going to be a severe problem?

NASA information here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

Sure, priests lie to you, politicians lie to you, the company, and the union lie to you. Are scientists somehow the only group exempt from lying?

Remember, the Church jailed Galileo because they knew he was right, and his findings questioned the legitimacy of the church based government. Does "We need to jail climate deniers", sound familiar?

As far as the models go, they describe an alarmingly exponentiation rise in global climate, implying an impending catastrophe outcome, however, the actual data points to a natural fluctuation in temperatures. Also, look at the fossil record, mammals thrive in much higher CO2 concentrations, around 1200-1400pmm compared to our 400ppm rate.

Also, the Temperature will rise, possibly to melt all the ice on the planet, a condition that has existed on this planet many times in the past. The place I'm writing this post from was once covered in 2 miles of ice, a mere 20,000 years ago. We will have many thousands of years to deal with rising sea levels.

Furthermore, there is no scientific consensus on the effects of global warming. The consensus exists on whether or not the climate is changing due to man made influence. Almost all actual climate scientists, don't buy into the AGW hysterics, only the policy makers do.

Lastly, another ice age is far and away more scary than a warming planet.

So if you think the models are no good, and you say we can't accurately predict the changes, I think you would agree that better and more transparent research should be conducted.

And if the results suggest dangerous consequences for millions of people, then you would support emissions controls?

Sure, almost all of the rise in actual temperatures, not looking at the models, is accounted for by Chinese trade ships that burn bunker oil. A single container ship from China burns the equivalent of 11 million cars of CO2. It's really simple, ban trade with China, no more rise in temperatures. Funny that the Paris accords specifically allow China to continue to burn that crap. It's a good thing to back out of the PA, until China does its part.

In the mean time, don't buy crap from China.

Lots of them, yes.

And lots that are claiming the sky is falling are funded by governments with an agenda.

In fact most of the research on both sides are funded by stakeholders.

Many of the "peer-reviewed" research depends on grants by governments and leftist organizations with an agenda. Most of them are unwilling to entertain anything that doesn't have confirmation bias in it because it doesn't serve their purpose.

As a friend of mine recently noted: "There are actually right leaning organizations seeking free market solutions to pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc. Because their solutions don't encourage massive expansion of government and diminishing individual liberty, the leftist climate movement won't give them the time of day."

And don't forget redistribution of wealth. Mainly ours.

Here's a great example, too bad the left keeps blocking it.

Actually, I think you missed my point. I wasn't making a claim either way (at least not yet). I was calling Vagabond out for his self aggrandizing ad hominem. He wasn't making reasoned arguments as you just did. I simply highlighted his poor tactic.

GP