Are Climatologists Stupid?

Do you think that climatologists are stupid?

That is, the entire collective scientific field. Do you think they are, collectively, idiots?

Because that's what statements like this imply:

"Those stupid climatologists! They're so dumb, they didn't even think of this incredibly obvious objection! Obviously, they've never thought of this before, so my quick quip about temperature variability outside of human influence will clearly overturn an entire field of scientific research because it's the linchpin they forgot to address!"

Seriously, guys, time for a look in the mirror. That last quote? That's you. That's you speaking to people like James Hansen and Michael Mann; PhD scientists with large numbers of published papers that have been sent through some of the harshest peer review known to modern science; the kind of review you'd expect when a paper is published stating "Speed of light actually not constant" or "Entirety of biology completely overturned" that actually looked to be accurate beyond the first glance. And before anyone mentions how they're all biased, I welcome you to read into some of the "Climategate" emails. There's actually a fairly decent number of them where the scientists disagree with each other, debate each other's results, and seem not to be completely in agreement the way one would expect, should there be a massive, global conspiracy.

Look, next time you come up with some objection which seems so obvious that any idiot could think of it, stop. Think for a second - "Why was I able to come up with this, while the major climatologists weren't? Maybe they did think of this?" Spend like a minute searching around sites like Realclimate and Skepticalscience. Maybe it'll save you the trouble of being the aforementioned "any idiot", and me the trouble of having to google around for almost a whole minute (and the trouble of calling you an idiot).

Climatologists already run the gauntlet of an entire industry dedicated to pointing out every single flaw in their arguments, whether said flaw actually exists in the first place or not, along with the additional gauntlet of peer review that every scientific paper must go through. If you could come up with something new, you could bring it up in peer review, or at least get a job writing for Anthony Watts or Christopher "Birther" Monckton or some other biased hack with an axe to grind. But none of this stuff is new. It's the stuff that climate science has explained ages ago. You sound like the guy who argues, "Something as complex as the eye could not possibly have evolved on its own" - as if it were a new objection, and as if we didn't already know that that argument was baloney.

 

...and found to be a fraud by those outside his circle jerk of academic sycophants.

Mann is the next poster boy for rent seeking authoritarian statists if anything happens to Al Gore.


.

 

Michael Mann, a fraud?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/02/michael-mann-cleared
Doesn't seem like it. In fact, there were upwards of 5 different investigations on the issue; all of them cleared his name. And of course, there's the Berkeley study...



Boy, if that doesn't look similar to Mann's graph...

 

Science.... Who needs it when really smart people have Bible????

 

Mann's a proven fraud. End of story.

 

AGW cultists are no different than bible thumping, fire and brimstone evangelicals....

Both rely on faith and fear.

 

Far from it.

Many understand that the gravy train of academic accolades and research funding flow directly from the conclusions of their previous work and expectations of their future conclusions confirming the hive mind's consensus. They are supported by rent seekers and authoritarian thugs like Obama.

 

Also...If these scientists are funded by govt grants, how does one continue to receive funding? Scientists are smart people obviously. They understand that something like this guarantees a job. What would many climatologists do if they concluded
that there is no man made global warming? Go report on the weather during hurricane season? Look carefully on what their job is dependent on and its quite obvious where many motivations may lie. Job security is #1. Smart people do anything possible to protect their jobs even if its dragging the gullible public along for the ride.

Its the EXACT same reason many people believe the cure for cancer or the common cold has been found long ago. Its far more lucrative PREVENTING something from happening than solving it. Why are climatologists and their think tanks any more reliable or HONEST than Pharmaceutical companies and their scientists? You cured cancer...then what? You just flushed down a lifetime of income and frankly what happens when millions of people live another 10 years because cancer didn't naturally do the job? What happens if you knew the causes, so you never even need a cure? Whats our population look like then? Scary prospect if you look at the big picture.

Climate change is REAL and man has an insignificant effect on it, because climate has been changing forever. Using the same logic as global warmists, anything can cause anything if you just say it does.

 

It doesnt even matter if its real or not.

Paying higher taxes, and paying taxes to the UN isnt gonna fix it.

F the UN
F Commies
F George Soros

 

No, not stupid at all....just simply over reaching trying to explain something that we currently dont understand enough to explain. How could we? We've only been watching this stuff for a little over a hundred years or so. In the believed lifespan of our planet, thats not even an eye blink...how could you draw anything from that?

Been warmer and colder long before man was here...but somehow now it's our fault that the planet fluctuates.

 

Simple put, climate science has been hijacked by greed & climate politics. End result will be diminished freedom & lifestyle for the un-rich via extreme regulatory actions and taxes handed down by enviro-political elites which will effectively bring about no change what so ever in the climate.

 

Thats the FACT.

 

Climatologists aren't stupid. But they are political.

 

What a circle jerk of ignorance.

 

Any documentation on this assertion? It's funny, I never see you guys back up anything you say with a credible source. You all are talking about Climate Change in a domestic context, but there is a global scientific consensus. Tell me, are they just sucking Obama's D for government funds as well?

 

oohhh.... Really??

Where is the UN going to build their giant ionic breeze air cleaners?

 

Where did you hear this nonsense? Infowars? WND?

 

"...papers that have been sent through some of the harshest peer review..."

Taxcutter says:
Where the "peers" are all other Warmers and no skeptics are allowed.

 

If the science is so good why can't they sell it to the Chinese?

 

Actually it does matter. Assuming the projections are relatively accurate then the entire bread-basket of the United States is going to become a vast desert within about 100 years. How will 300-400 million Americans survive if all of Kansas, Nebraska and the other farming states become deserts? They're already depleting the ground aquifer at an alarming rate.

Of course taxes aren’t required so that is a straw horse argument. Simply requiring coal-fired electrical power plants to convert to off the shelf “clean coal” technology would reduce CO2 emissions by up to 40% while still providing very cost effective electrical power. Increasing automotive mileage standards, which the auto industry and the Obama Administration have recently agreed to will also dramatically reduce CO2 emissions.

None of this involves any taxation and it doesn’t impose any serious financial burden on enterprise so why do so many oppose it? The United States can reduce total CO2 emissions to less than 50% of what we're producing today with virtually no negative impact to our economy so why haven't we taken the initiative to do so?

 

Hell no , they're not stupid. The made up "AGW" has been their Gravy Train for more than two decades now....

 

"Simply requiring coal-fired electrical power plants to convert to off the shelf “clean coal” technology would reduce CO2 emissions by up to 40% while still providing very cost effective electrical power. Increasing automotive mileage standards, which the auto industry and the Obama Administration have recently agreed to will also dramatically reduce CO2 emissions.

None of this involves any taxation and it doesn’t impose any serious financial burden on enterprise so why do so many oppose it?"


Taxcutter says:
Because it places an enormous burden on the consumer. That is an oustanding reason to be vigorously opposed to such regulation.

 

For all those Global Warming denialists, after you make it through the schooling alone, which is academically difficult, then you actually have to do field work. If any of you think that is easy and comfortable, then it would once again identify your ignorance on the subject. Just about every field scientists, whether it be biology, archeology , climate, et al, are afflicted with some ailment during their field work, plenty never fully recover. Then there is the travel and accomodations, which are the farthest from first class when doing field work.

So if any of you think it is a joke, try it for a few weeks.

 

Of course, most climatologists NEVER LEAVE THE BUILDING....