Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

WTF?!? Says some random schmuck on the internet

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

You really have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about, do you?

[Tyrannical]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

WTF?!? Says the internet racist who probably lives in his mum's basement.

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

You really have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about, do you?

So what exactly is wrong with questioning the credentials of so called experts? Having a PhD in climatology and being a world renowned expert on the subject may be just as accurate if the pursuit was in astrology instead. Or would you take the word of an expert astrologer Global warming is a physics question, and climatologists do not have the scientific background to answer it.

Oh, and racism is based on rational scientific facts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

WTF?!? Says the internet racist who probably lives in his mum's basement.

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

You really have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about, do you?

So what exactly is wrong with questioning the credentials of so called experts?

You didn't question the creds, you called them shit. Difference.

[Animavore]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

WTF?!? Says the internet racist who probably lives in his mum's basement.

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

You really have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about, do you?

So what exactly is wrong with questioning the credentials of so called experts? Having a PhD in climatology and being a world renowned expert on the subject may be just as accurate if the pursuit was in astrology instead. Or would you take the word of an expert astrologer Global warming is a physics question, and climatologists do not have the scientific background to answer it.

Oh, and racism is based on rational scientific facts.

This is almost slanderous.

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

WTF?!? Says the internet racist who probably lives in his mum's basement.

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

You really have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about, do you?

So what exactly is wrong with questioning the credentials of so called experts? Having a PhD in climatology and being a world renowned expert on the subject may be just as accurate if the pursuit was in astrology instead. Or would you take the word of an expert astrologer Global warming is a physics question, and climatologists do not have the scientific background to answer it.

How in fuck would you know?

Oh, and racism is based on rational scientific facts.

No it's not.

[Tyrannical]

I'll make it simple for all of you. Find my fault in either logic or facts.

1: Accurately modeling the Earth's climate is amongst the most difficult questions Man has ever asked.

Fairly accurate statement or am I already loading the question

2: The modeling of the Earth's climate involves the near limit of our understanding of math, chemistry and physics.

Or is it easier and requires less knowledge of those disciplines than I claim

3: Global warming scientists are not sufficient experts in math, chemistry, and physics to accurately model the Earth's climate.

Or are they? What really is their level of education in those subjects? What do they really know and understand?

[Animavore]

Or are they? What really is their level of education in those subjects? What do they really know and understand?

Some combination of geophysics, maths, chemistry, statistics, meterology, oceanography, computer science, ordinary differential equations... etc.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll make it simple for all of you. Find my fault in either logic or facts.

"Prove pixies aren't real! "

Support your case with credible facts or

[Tero]

There are hundreds of climate experts. Their expertise is enough to examine ice cores, analyze C isotopes in CO2 etc etc. The warming prediction comes with a +/- error. In 20-40 years the error will be less, we will have more data.

[Tyrannical]

Or are they? What really is their level of education in those subjects? What do they really know and understand?

Some combination of geophysics, maths, chemistry, statistics, meterology, oceanography, computer science, ordinary differential equations... etc.

You are of course correct
More specialties that climate science is too broad and intellectually less rigorous to contain. Plasma physics, as in the study of the Sun which provides almost all the heat in the first place is also sorely lacking. Just looking at the course requirements for degrees in the climatology field, as well as what is possessed by the so called experts should immediately raise doubts. Sorely lacking in the prerequisite sciences.

[Animavore]

Or are they? What really is their level of education in those subjects? What do they really know and understand?

Some combination of geophysics, maths, chemistry, statistics, meterology, oceanography, computer science, ordinary differential equations... etc.

You are of course correct
More specialties that climate science is too broad and intellectually less rigorous to contain. Plasma physics, as in the study of the Sun which provides almost all the heat in the first place is also sorely lacking. Just looking at the course requirements for degrees in the climatology field, as well as what is possessed by the so called experts should immediately raise doubts. Sorely lacking in the prerequisite sciences.

FFS! That's like saying evolution is too broad and intellectually less rigorous because it contains lines of evidence from molecular biology, embryology, genetics, paelentology, comparitive anatomy and more...

Indenpendant lines of evidence from different scientific fields converging on the same answer strenghtens a theory. Not weakens it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

FFS! That's like saying evolution is too broad and intellectually less rigorous because it contains lines of evidence from molecular biology, embryology, genetics, paelentology, comparitive anatomy and more...

Indenpendant lines of evidence from different scientific fields converging on the same answer strenghtens a theory. Not weakens it.

Oh come on! You know evidence doesn't accumulate or come from more than one source. Silly billy!

[JimC]

As I have said before, climate science is a team-based exercise, and as well as meteorologists, you would have physicists, chemists, mathematicians and programmers all working together to develop models.

Around the world, the teams compete, and are only too willing to poke holes in each other's models, which is a healthy thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Another Seeth troll thread.

[pErvinalia]

I'll make it simple for all of you. Find my fault in either logic or facts.

1: Accurately modeling the Earth's climate is amongst the most difficult questions Man has ever asked.

Fairly accurate statement or am I already loading the question

2: The modeling of the Earth's climate involves the near limit of our understanding of math, chemistry and physics.

Or is it easier and requires less knowledge of those disciplines than I claim

3: Global warming scientists are not sufficient experts in math, chemistry, and physics to accurately model the Earth's climate.

Or are they? What really is their level of education in those subjects? What do they really know and understand?

It's "3", that is the problem. The problem is you wouldn't have a fucking clue what climatologists study and do. They are experts in the relevant parts of those disciplines. You are not.