4 ms·
You're really veering off into conspiracy theory territory here. It's clear you haven't the faintest how climate models or any geophysics works. Don't mistake a
by cultus 8y ago
You're really veering off into conspiracy theory territory here. It's clear you haven't the faintest how climate models or any geophysics works. Don't mistake a facility for computers for expertise in all science. I actually have a PhD in a geophysics field, I know what I am talking about here.
1. That study is 10 years old at this point. The evidence for climate change has become vastly more undeniable since then.
2. Majorities of scientists from all categories believed in climate change, even back then, according to this study.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoI'm not disputing global warming. I am disputing the impression of a 97% consensus. And this is a great example of what I'm talking about, you're trying to call me a conspiracy theorist, and making up stuff about what you think I know.
- cultus 8y agoNo, you aren't just disputing the consensus. You are claiming that climatologists "shut critics and skeptics" out of the field, so we shouldn't listen to them. Yes, they do shut out pseudoscience, as do other legitimate sciences. That is different from disagreement on scientific facts. Climatologists disagree about very fundamental things all the time.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoThere are people on the record saying certain kinds of results simply shouldn’t be published. Also, anybody who views climate prediction as intrinsically suspect pseudoscience isn’t going to want to enter the field either.
- cultus 8y agoSo now you are saying that climatology is literally pseudoscience.
- viridian 8y agoThat isn't what was said though. This entire conversation chain is painful to read, I would encourage you to read up on the principle of charity. It's a dialectic tactic that seems to be fast fading in the world of click bait and outrage, and I think everyone is suffering for it.