Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Do you really think the most advanced climate science known to man is as simple as the rules to football? I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
Your posts are full of assumptions and generalizations, just like most current discussions between laymen on the issue. If I were involved in the discussions, I'm guessing my posts would be full of assumptions, generalizations, and outright falsehoods, though I wouldn't intentionally be trying to lie or deceive.
|
In order to create climate models one has to make certain assumptions - that is the basis of this whole issue - knowing and understanding the assumptions. A climate model can show significant different results with minor tweaks to the assumptions used. When assumptions are disclosed there is no intent to deceive. When the assumptions used are disclosed along with methodology and raw data everyone should be able to recreate the same result.
Quote:
|
Do you know why C02 has risen since 1998 but global temperatures have cooled over the same period? The intuitive response would be that CO2 may not correlate to warming in the same way that global climate change proponents suggest, but when you apply even a most basic understanding of climate science to the question, you understand that data suggests that there's about a 30-year lag time between greenhouse levels and the effects. Why would that be? Simple! Oceans absorb temperature and CO2, creating a lagging effect. I've read up on climate science a great deal in the past few years, but I would be naive for me to assume that reading up on climate science made me a climate scientist.
|
You present many different issues in this paragraph and I am not sure what you want a response to, but I agree that reviewing what a climate scientist does will not make one a climate scientist. But, I don't take the position that a layman can not understand climate science. I am still not clear on your point.
Quote:
|
I've barely scratched the surface of the science and judging by what's being posted online and talked about in the media, I guess I'm a few steps ahead of the general public (not that I'm gloating, I'm really not. I honestly don't know shit about shit when it comes to climate science). I also don't know much about particle physics or organic chemistry, so you won't catch me dead trying to hold my own in a debate on those subjects.
|
I am curious. In your view what makes a person an expert in something? What makes a person a scientist? What makes a person a climate scientist?
I am going to guess that you think having "accredited" letters after your name is the key. am I right? In my view, my response would be based on real knowledge, real work, real experience. So, yes a Phd., would qualify, but so could the person who has spent a life time of study, observation, experimentation, research,etc., who does not have a Phd.