How many climate change skeptics actually understand the workings of the climate?

T

Trevor

New member
It seems a fair assumption that before passing comment on any subject you should fist have some knowledge of that subject. I for example know little about medicine; as such I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to comment on medical matters. So why then do so many climate change skeptics decisively comment on a subject about which they have little or no comprehension?

I have no problem whatsoever with them asking questions and voicing opinions but to make bold statements which are patently unfounded and about which they know little and can explain even less seems to be arrogant and opinionated to say the least.

Ask questions – yes. Voice opinions – yes. Debate sensibly – yes. Pass fallacy off as fact – no.
 
None here apparently.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtCSG1bsKI43buwV5k34n1jAFQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20091125181753AAQcL4B
As Dana pointed out the other day this may be part of the reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
 
Common sense. What about the people who believe in global warming with out even looking into it for them self's. I think it is foolish to blindly follow science.
 
In light of recent events I think it might be a better question to ask how many Global warming alarmists understand the computer programs they rely so heavily on. Talk about GIGO.
 
Well considering I have never yet met a single liberal who knows any real science I make any real debates with moderates dealing with information that was given them by liberal teachers and they have a hard time comprehending that their teachers flat out lied to them.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_publish_global_cooling_study
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capacity
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-change-non-co2-causes/
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
 
I think with the vast majority of them a dialogue is hopeless. They have no interest in the science, and if you disagree they call you a liberal, or a leftist--even if the only thing you talk about is the science.
 
The fact that they can not see or understand the end of the world climate scientist are promoting, makes them think it is not real.

Many skeptics don't understand climate change. Acceptance of information that is not understood requires trust in the source.

Be aware the first time everyone gets an electric bill for $1000, they will literaly be out for blood, regardless of there understanding of science. You will see war and violence beyond your wildest global warming imagination.

Interpreting climate proxy data, melting sea ice, and the feeding habits of polar bears is much like someone telling you how world events are all clearly written in the book of revelations. They never saw it coming, but now they know it is a sign.

You would not be presumptious on medical matters? You feel fine, the doctor says it is a brain tumor, ok let's start drilling then.

Have many people understand economics, politics, how the government works, how the judicial system works? They are still entitled to be part of the process.


How many scientists are waiting for their urgent crisis to become top priority over everthing else.

Most debates are solved by the correct answer solving a problem. The wrong medication wil not cure the disease. Replacing the wrong part won't fix the machine. The wrong way of farming will not get the optimum crop yield. And results need to come quickly.

What is the metric for judging a climate model? What does it do? Why do we know that it is working? What human problem does it solve?

Tweaking climate models to achieve the desired results of warming, every time something new contradicts warming is not honest science.
 
How many Warmists understand that their incompetent Aristotelean empiricist and statistical methodologies were refuted by Gottfried Leibniz and Bernard Riemann hundreds of years ago?
 
Back
Top