Red Forman

And some people think we have a qualified president even though he never really had a real job before getting elected. But I'm sure that's different.

N2264J

You're not saying astrology is a science are you?

That would be an astonishing revelation by a pilot in the 21st century.

But your false equivalency is helpful in explaining the cognitive dissonance of
the anti-science crowd.

jungle

We still await any science at all to prove your position, while calling everyone here anti-science you have yet to produce any real evidence by scientists. No, the UN does not count.

You have posted many articles consisting solely of social commentary and how warming can achieve the goals of a broader and more invasive government-but science? Nada, zip, zilch.

Maybe I missed it, where is your science?

And just so everyone knows why there is no real public debate on the facts or the science:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest...p-politics.pdf


The other problem is that the young masters of the universe who would control the climate with great precision is that they have failed quite grossly in controlling the economy of the world-they have bigger fish to fry right now and global domination is currently on the back burner.

FDXLAG

Actually I am claiming Climate change is a science in the same way that astrology is a science. But I guess I was way to subtle for you. Let me try again. Your science is quackery designed to bilk the gullable out of their hard earned income. But in this case income is a pseudonym for confiscatory and crippling taxes stolen from future generations.

You claim that a PHD in physic has no qualification to criticize the "science" of climate change and yet you question my cognitive dissonance. But I understand why the "climate scientist" dont want any physicists crapping in their rice bowl. Let those physics geeks get their money the honest way; by getting a kick back after bundling cash for whatever politico is capable of kicking back.

N2264J

Have you heard of this new thing called "The Google"?

Search

AAAS - Search: global warming

N2264J

Climate science is not his expertise and he has no peer reviewed work on the subject.

I minored in chemistry but that doesn't make me a chemist.

I have a BS in mathematics but that doesn't make me a mathematician.

I'm not a climate scientist myself so I'm happy to defer to the community that has spent decades studying the subject and have come to a consensus. I think that is a perfectly reasonable position.

.

FDXLAG

And the one thing climategate has taught us, you cant get peer reviewed on the subject unless you agree with the premise.

jungle

Once again, you have failed to point us to any scientific study-just a bunch of fluff articles without real data.

Why can't you direct us to an actual study with real data?

Could it be that one does not exist? The data shows no significant warming over the last 15 years, man caused or otherwise. Do you have any data that shows otherwise?

Are you anti-science?

N2264J

It's called Google and you can find it here: Google

Really, it's a huge subject and I don't know what your interests are.

The problem with many technical papers is that most laymen don't understand what they're reading or can't put the data into context. But I'm sure you can find that
stuff on the World Wide Interweb although there may be a subscription fee involved.
In the meantime, here are 7,000 more leads but don't get the idea I'm going to do
your homework for you.

Search results : global warming : Nature

Search Results

When you refer to products from the National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science as fluff, your contempt for the discipline
is apparent. The NAS and the AAAS are the two premiere scientific bodies on the
planet and both meet your silly "not the UN" requirement. In fact, the NAS has more Nobel Laureates per square foot than any other congregation of eggheads.

But frankly, I think your interest in any real research is insincere. You seem to suffer from a paranoid delusion that tens of thousands of climate scientists are engaged
in a world-wide conspiracy to defraud you out of your money and no amount of
reality based raw data is going to help you with that because the source has no credibility with you at the outset.

jungle

Climategate proved there is a conspiracy, the data does not support the criminal enterprise.

You still can't point us to a study that says otherwise, but you can call us paranoid absent of any facts whatsoever.

You seem to think laymen cannot understand a simple temperature graph over time, how they all wish this was true.