Registered On: September 7, 2015
The evidence for recent climate changes are not based solely on climate models (and when it has you have been unable to back this up with evidence that doesn’t have questions surrounding its context or legitimacy). I have not been talking about climate models when doing so, generally, but once again you try and bring it back to this. All it demonstrates is your lack of understanding and I have no trust that you would even accept any evidence to the contrary.
After all, you accepted Phin’s Ickean nonsense (which includes her climate guff), so why should I even waste time with this?
Remember, just because your gargantuan ego convinces you that you are some expert on this it doesn’t mean others have to see you that way. Your ramblings on this shows that you haven’t got the foggiest about climate change, from your continued misunderstandings on things like the polar vortex to the continued existence of snow to the evidence for anthropogenic climate change beyond models to Phin’s error strewn analysis being blindly trusted because it suits your agenda.
If you were genuinely interested you would not seek answers from this or blogs, but from scientists outside your selected bubble, who happen to agree with everything you say, no matter what, and consider what the evidence actually says, not what you want it to be. The scientists you cite are outliers, and it’s perhaps you try to understand why a little more. Of course being an outlier doesn’t mean they’re incorrect, there are plenty of outlying opinions have been shown to be correct. However, they are shown to be because of indisputable evidence. Curry and others can keep trying to show otherwise, but their views are not automatically granted respect when they can’t back them up or answer queries. When such scientists are shown to be wrong it’s perhaps best to ask why (see here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/global-warming-when-judith-curry-makes-a-claim-check-for-yourself/) rather than constantly assuming that there must be some grand conspiracy because people dare to challenge your expert opinion. When you rely on such people with dubious answers it shouldn’t come as a surprise when people doubt your understanding on this and don’t consider you to be someone whose judgment isn’t clouded. It’s clear that you only accept views which agree with your pre-conceived ideas, as always.
No doubt you will claim I am doing such, in your usual tedious fashion, because we all know you can never be wrong. However, consider that I am the one actually checking their claims and not spouting about how right they are and citing scientists without a thought as to the criticism they receive. And receiving criticism does not equal silencing, as the wannabe martyrs of the denier movement so want it to be.
That will be all. I will not bother looking at this thread, and feed your obsession, so by all means respond if you want to waste your time.