It's worth the electrons because it puts to rest the warmist meme that the science is settled. Here are 50 scientists with hundreds of years of scientific experience under their belts and they are tired of the unsubstantiated claims being made by the alarmists.
Please identify the scientists you see and deliniate which ones you percieve to have relevent climate science understandings. The only alarmists I percieve are those who are touting that the costs of addressing the problems are ruinously greater than the costs of addressing the consequences of failing to address the problems of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Yours and the other warmists continuing belief that only climatologists are capable of understanding climatology is problematic.
I don't believe that anyone in this discussion has stated what you proclaim above. What is logical and reasonable, is that people who have devoted their lives to the study of ancient and modern planetary climate, and who are widely and deservedly recognized among their peers as leaders in the field, are arguably and demonstrably more credible and valid sources of information regarding the understanding of climate science and its portents for current and future climate trends, than those who lack the same academic and professional recognitions and acknowledgements.
Regardless of the religious overtones (think high priests being the only conduit of the Word of God here)...
Ahhh, assert an unevidenced proposition and then paint imagery rather then citation in support of your musings,...and this is reasonable and compelling how and where?
...there is the simple fact that climatology is not a hard science.
you appear to have the terms "fact" and "fantasy" confused. Please present some hard scientific evidence in support of this assertion.
1
As an example, a geologist holding a doctorate, is capable of teaching ANY climatology class with the exception of perhaps the computer classes...
This assertion is simply inapropriately incorrect. Though many branches of climatology are appropriately under the general geology/earth science field of study, geology itself is a sub-specialty of plantery development and astrodynamics, ultimately resolving from cosmology and theoretical physics. Despite this, doctorates are about specific applications and areas of understanding, not broad-range detailed understandings of every sub-field within (yet alone along the line of) any hierarchy of scientific investigation and understanding. As an example, a cosmologist with a doctorates in obscurant stellar core nucleosynthesis processes might be perfectly capable of understanding some aspects of atmospheric radiative transfer mechanisms, he isn't going to have the associated paleoclimatic and historic record data accumulations of observations and understandings of these impacts in the specific application to our planet. Nor, is he going to appreciate the assorted other factors and complex interactions involved in routine but comprehensive climate considerations. This isn't to say that these people are incapable of developing these types of understandings, any more than any other intelligent
and capable human being, merely that without further qualification, no general geologist, meteorologist, computer science major, economist, business major, medical doctor, etc., is going to be as knowledgable or competent in the field of climatolgy as actively researching, publishing climatologists.
...(and that because the climatologists are using a fairly antiquated language that we no longer use)...
Cite and reference for "we"? and "antiquated" with example and compelling valid support.
...whereas a climatologist holding the same level of degree is not able to teach a single graduate level geology class I can think of.
this isn't about your musings, this is about evidences and compelling support for your assertions. Please support your assertion.
This in no way impugns their intellectual capacity, just their levels of education which are of less rigor then the hard sciences.
your understandings seem quite distinct from reality, but please feel free to offer any substantive and compelling support of these impressions so that we can establish the veracity of them.
They would be completely lost in a optical crystalography class or even a beginning isotope geology class would be impossible for them to teach.
assertions and musings do not equate to compelling support, merely rhetorical flourish.
"Sentence fragment, consider revising."
Many sciences and scientists are quite capable of understanding anything the climatologists will present.
And the vast and overwhelming majority do.
2
We have a much greater foundational understanding of the physical properties of how the world functions.
Please cite, reference and compellingly support "we."
1 Climatology [ˌklaɪməˈtɒlədʒɪ] n: (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) the study of climate.
2 Scientific opinion on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
note - wiki itself is a poor reference, in this instance, the references and supports provided are themselves reliable and accurate supports for the information presented, unless there is an assertion of national/global conspiracy, in which case there is a better venue for that discussion.
(and what the criteria for inane is)!
