Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

For starters I don't believe anything in nature related to climate. They gave us the hockey stick. Second its a future projection.

 

It's a cash grab. You can't stop the climate from changing. We just gotta roll with the punches like those before us did.

 

Sweet buttery Jesus. You obviously are so deep in your unfounded denial no amount of fact can drag you out

- - - Updated - - -

How exactly is it a cash grab? Where do you think there is more money? In reducing emissions or in the continued burning of fossil fuels?

 

Continued burning of fossil fuels.

Scientists are definitely cashing in. Even Al Gore didn't believe his own preachery.

 

I gave you a link last time you posted this fraud.

Yes the mangroves are grown. I don't dispute that. There have been major conservation efforts to see such happen. The fraud is attributing the growth that is due to conservation efforts to global warming.

You read my links. You know your source is a fraud. Yet you continue to post it. Do you think that it is okay to post a source that you know is lying?

The author said in his paper that the growth was

“uncorrelated with changes in mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and land use.”

Not the last part, land use. That includes conservation efforts. It doesn't take long to find that the exact area where author insisted that mangrove growth was being fueled by global warming has a major mangrove conservation effort going on.
http://floridadep.org/coastal/sites/indianriver/calendar/shoreline.htm



Your author lied. Its academic fraud and is exactly the reason that peer review often fails. Peer review is there to catch honest mistakes. Not authors lying their asses off.

What is also bad is that I posted all of this last time you posted this crap. You never responded which everyone full well knows is admission that I was correct yet you continue to post a study that you know is a lie.

I got news for you. Its not morally acceptable to repeat a lie anymore than it is to tell it yourself. But guess what you will slink off from this thread as you did the last one and continue to post the same crap in other threads hoping that you can get away with it.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists aren't "cashing in". You clearly don't know any scientists if you have deluded yourself into thinking they are rich because if doing fake research or whatever you think it is scientists spend their time doing.

The average phD candidate in biological science gets 28k a year. Ooo big bucks, a good reason to spend 6 years of your life researching the fake effects of climate change and writing a 100 page dissertation

 

Who again do the planting, Mr Peer Review!!!!

 

James hansen cashed in

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/...now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

And Dr. Mann gets $10,000 speaking fees. I'm sure he would get that much money if he actually studied trees instead of making the outlandish and false claim that he can use them to know the temperature 1200 years ago.
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee

- - - Updated - - -

\

I don't even know what you are trying to argue now. You've been caught in a lie. Deal with it.

 

Yeah, I made up the article and the satellite evidence.

 

Those are big name scientists. For every one Hanson and Mann there are a 1000 average scientists studying the effects of acidification on molluscs, and they certainly aren't getting $10,000 speaking fees

 

And the thing is those speaking fees are not based on their results. It's based on their credibility as a scientist. If they produced credible studies that said global warming was not man made they'd be getting the same speaking fees. Hell possibly more since I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives groups that would pay good money to have them spread the word at their conferences.

 

.

But they have a job in a big field that use to be a sub-field of geography relegated to university basements. These people are begging on the street if AGW isn't a problem. They have gone all in and once more they know it from the Dr. Manns to the lowest grad student. They all know that their entire lives are dependent on this one theory.

- - - Updated - - -

No its based on their celebrity. Mann has couldn't be more wrong.

 

What proof of this do you have? Who do you think is funding these scientists that they'd only get money if their results give evidence for AGW.

 

No you posted a study that you knew to be a lie.

Just because someone scientists was lying doesn't morally absolve you from posting it when you knew it was a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Because prior to AGW it was a sub-field of geography in university basements. What has changed to warrant its massive funding other than AGW?

Will climatology still exist? Yes. Will it be anything like it is today? Oh hell no. "Climatologists" are all in and they know it.

 

a master of logical fallacy I see.

 

They are extremely knowledgeable and well researched in climate, geology and natural science. I assure you they'll still have plenty of work if they find credible results that disprove AGW. In fact if they can turn the tide of the scientific community on this I'm pretty sure they'd be considered rockstars. Scientists absolutely love people who can prove others wrong.

 

No they are specalized in climate and there isn't that many jobs available if AGW isn't there to get them funding. If it goes away things go back to as they were. A handful of true experts like Dr. Richard Lindzen. That is all the field can justify without AGW. Without it, its not a very glamorous field with little justification for funding. They are all in and they know it.

 

The knowledge required for climatology is easily transferred to all areas of natural sciences.

 

Name the fallacy.

If you are thinking ad hominem think again that requires the fact to be irrelevant to the subject.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If you think that someone with a climatology degree is going to take a position in oceanography form someone with an oceanography degree I have a bridge to sell you.

The field is bloated and cannot justify its funding and present existence without AGW. Everyone who works in the field knows it. They are all in and they know it.

While the rest of us should be happy that it hasn't warmed climatologists aren't. Why do you think that is? Because will they say that global warming will kill us all they need to to happen to save their livelihoods.

 

This happens literally all the time. Scientists do not stay in the field they graduated with. Sometimes they get bored with their current field or have trouble finding work and they go to a different field instead.

Companies and universities don't care what they studied as long as they know how to study and have a decent amount of expertise in the field.

 

As someone who has graduated I'll tell you that they stay pretty damn close to the field they graduated. The study of climate is a very narrow field. There isn't much opportunity without AGW and they know it. We are talking about peoples livelihood here.

 

Why did the last Ice Age end?

 

You seem so think that "climatology" is the only scientific field that deals with climate change. Many other fields, such as biology, zoology, and oceanography do extensive research on its effects. You're not going to tell me that they woul be SOL without climate change now are you?

 

Climatology is the field that drives the alarm. They make the climate models they make the predictions. Everyone else is just engaging in the science of the day.

 

Right. Of course they do. They just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up because it's cool.(and has been for decades)