Re: Global Warming Still Real

"Tony Elka" <shadowlane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:shadowlane-8E5824.11212623012011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <8tydnXQe8Z0-5aHQnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"west" <west77062@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ihhliv$luv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Green/Pace" wrote in message
>> news:ihcrdn$ilj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>> Go read the article !
>>
>> Was it written by climate scientists? No? Then why would anyone >> consider
>> it more persuasive than what the overwhelming majority of climate
>> scientists are saying?
>
> How does one become a "Climate Scientist"?

Presumably by studying "Physics", "Chemistry", "Meteorology", or some
combination of those and other "Sciences", and then specializing.



There's some math and statistical course requirements along the way to
those college degrees too. And then you have to do some real work, with
findings that can be duplicated by others, peer review, etc.

Why is science such a mystery to some people?

It's just another example of shooting the messenger, Tony. Put quotes around it and snicker, when the mind has turned to jello and is no longer capable of intelligent debate.

As someone who's worked in science for 40+ years now, I can say that there ARE excesses in the scientific community: shameless self-promotion, publishing the same set of scientific findings in a variety of journals to artificially jack up the publication count, exploitation of grad students/postdocs, etc. But these anti-global-warming nutjobs are so far off the mark, it's hilarious. Oddly enough, the "techniques" used to attempt to discredit legitimate scientific research are eerily reminiscent of the tactics of the "creation science"/"intelligent design" crowd. The same single-minded focus on minor discrepancies (which legitimate research corrects in the course of refining theories, establishing corroboration, etc.). The most fundamental similarity, however, is that legitimate science is ALWAYS capable of self-correction; the same cannot be said of ideologically/religiously-driven pseudo-science.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. ... Proof is not to be had in science. ... The scientists active in these areas make it their ... climate forcing, in my view. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... but that doesn't say anythihg about global warming. ... If you'd ever done any real science, ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... Then we were warned by the Club of Rome,supported by large numbers of scientists, that we would run out of natural resources in our lifetimes. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... As governor of Alaska, I took a stand ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: How Scientists Cant Communicate
    ... start of his paper - that scientists are heterogenous. ... topics like evolution and climate change are hardly people innocently ... misunderstanding the science. ... or that adjusting to climate ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... This resulted in such government bureaucrats taking ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)