Well meaning idiots

[Foxy Moron]

The climate scientists tend to know their subject, have reserched it, and their independent work shows similar paterns. Juxtapose that with not being an expert, infact not really knowing that much, but holding a polar opposite view, without any or little evidence, because that suits your lifestyle. Being ill informed is not the same as being correct or being a maverick.

[EternalOptimist]

The climate scientists tend to know their subject, have reserched it, and their independent work shows similar paterns. Juxtapose that with not being an expert, infact not really knowing that much, but holding a polar opposite view, without any or little evidence, because that suits your lifestyle. Being ill informed is not the same as being correct or being a maverick.

and your point is ?

do you really see no difference between

1. yet to be persuaded - please answer my questions
2. holding a polar opposite view, without any or little evidence

[Svalbaard]

The climate scientists tend to know their subject, have reserched it, and their independent work shows similar paterns. Juxtapose that with not being an expert, infact not really knowing that much, but holding a polar opposite view, without any or little evidence, because that suits your lifestyle. Being ill informed is not the same as being correct or being a maverick.

Playing devils advocate here :

The climate scientists tend to know their subject, have researched it, and their independent work shows similar paterns = continued research funding from corporates and Govmt. who can profit from the fear.

[Foxy Moron]

You compare scientific opinion to subscribing to a popularity contest, which indicates you have no understanding of scientific research.

[dang65]

Thanks for the scientific response. I rest my case.

Yeah, this might be your problem. You find some blog somewhere which questions overwhelming scientific evidence and immediately rest your case. Might be a better policy to ask yourself whether the statements on such blogs actually hold any water whatsoever when actually investigated. All of these issues raised by doubters (including routine solar activity, for example ) have been answered many times. By people that know what they're talking about.

[Svalbaard]

You compare scientific opinion to subscribing to a popularity contest, which indicates you have no understanding of scientific research.

How so?

Come on... enlighten us with some of your critical thinking.

[Foxy Moron]

Playing devils advocate here :

The climate scientists tend to know their subject, have researched it, and their independent work shows similar paterns = continued research funding from corporates and Govmt. who can profit from the fear.

That's not playing devils advocate, that's believing in conspiracy theories.
What are your views on 911, was it the CIA?
Scientists fit the reasearch to the results and conclusions is what you are implying.

[EternalOptimist]

You compare scientific opinion to subscribing to a popularity contest, which indicates you have no understanding of scientific research.

I will be persuaded by the scientific research, by the scientific observations or by a watertight theory.
I will not be persuaded by hysteria, a majority opinion or by insults

[sasguru]

3. Peer review is not in any way equal to scientific method. Never has been, isn't now.

That's 3 for you warmers to respond to. Go ahead.

I stopped reading this thread when I came across this cretinous statement. So idiotic on so many levels and indicating such a poor understanding of how science actually works, that its not worth discussing further.

I blame NuLab and their education system.

[sasguru]

I will be persuaded by the scientific research, by the scientific observations or by a watertight theory.
I will not be persuaded by hysteria, a majority opinion or by insults

And another one. I do hope its poor education and not, as I suspect, a low IQ.