4 ms·
Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist at all and never has been. Roy Spencer isn't a "renowned scientist"; he's a paid oil-industry shill. Lindzen used to be
by Bud 9y ago
Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist at all and never has been.
Roy Spencer isn't a "renowned scientist"; he's a paid oil-industry shill.
Lindzen used to be a scientist; now he's retired and gets paid to be a Cato Institute shill.
Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better.
So, basically, yes, they are all bought and paid for, or, they simply have no credentials or knowledge of the field in question.
- Karunamon 9y agoThis is exactly what I meant by fallacies. Either their research is legitimate or it is not. And that legitimacy is not a factor of the employer - if their science sucks, it'll manifest in the data, analysis, or conclusions, regardless of who's paying for it. "Shills" is an insult, not an argument.
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoAre you qualified to decipher the data? Honest question.
- Bud 9y agoThey aren't doing any "research".
- voice_of_reason 9y agoDyson is a renowned physicist interested in climate science. I believe that his physics/math skills and general intelligence allow him to be quite competent in climate issues. Lindzen retired only in 2013. I don't see how this makes his opinion about CAGW less valuable, especially given the fact that he was skeptical about CAGW hypothesis for a long time. "Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better." - where's the proof that she is a "shill"? Roy Spencer is a renowned scientist in my book: "Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center." Again, where is the proof that he is oil industry's shill?
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoAre you a creationist?
- voice_of_reason 9y agoThere are climate scientists who are proponents of CAGW and who believe in creationism: http://www.christianpost.com/news/climate-change-evangelical-scientists-say-limbaugh-wrong-faith-and-science-compliment-one-another-103470/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/climate-change-evangelical... Does it automatically make CAGW hypothesis wrong? Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago"Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?" I was speaking specifically of Spencer, and, yes, it calls into question everything he professes.
- dang 9y agoPlease don't do this here.
- mturmon 9y agoTo my knowledge, Freeman Dyson has no peer reviewed research contributions in the climate literature. That should be the price of entry, otherwise there is nothing of substance to critique.
- oh_sigh 9y agoSo basically, anyone who is a respectable scientist who disagrees with this is a shill?
- Bud 9y agoThey aren't respectable scientists, first of all, and second, they're shills because of the definition of the word "shill", which you probably should go and look up.