This response is not only for you but for all your "me and my forum colleagues " (what are you – a group, a cult?). "Scientist" of whom you blab so much is a concept, a methodology of thinking, a kind of epistemology. A good scientist in biology presented with a discussion on a subject in chemistry might be able to judge how good the science is if he understands the methodology (e.g. chromatography) the type of data support etc.
He's not going to get that type of understanding from watching the Discovery Channel. The "scientist" in your little hypothetical is still an example of a poor scientist that's not using his scientific training to understand a subject.
Once Bruckarroo (7802) wrote "we've already heard everything you're likely to say" I immediately understood the scientific level of the "colleagues".
We've had loads of global warming deniers here, and we've heard all the "arguments". That's what he meant. The scientific level of the people on these boards varies. AleCcowaN is, for example, a climate scientist. I'm a layman.
Once same (and uke 7806) blabbed about evolution right after you guys claimed one should not make conclusive statements is areas of science he has no expertise in (or are they biologists on the subject of climate?),
We "blabbed" about evolution, because you are making the same mistake an evolution denier would. A proper scientist knows better than to venture out of his field of study and make any conclusive claims. A field as complicated as climate science requires years of study to fully comprehend. A physicist, for example, might understand some of the underlying principles, but unless he's actively studied the field for a long time, he's not going to get all the intricacies. If he despite this starts shooting his mouth off about the subject in public - especially if his views contradict the vast majority of leading experts - he's most likely what we would call a McExpert - a faux expert most likely spouting from an ideological or religious bias, rather than any scientific understanding.
once you used "strawmanization" and few sentences later claimed that I claimed that you "and others are telling that people are idiots and fakes because they don't think as we do" (if you wont be able to show where I said this you will have to be considered unreliable in quoting others (delicately put), A,B,C of acceptable science),
I'm sure he meant your claim that he thought "that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one."
once I had realized all these then I really understood the scientific strength around here.
You can drop this ridiculous concern trolling now. It's getting old.
I don't thing you understand why your 2+2 example has nothing to do with scientific theory and debate.
It's more likely that you don't understand why it has.
And almost lastly, let's talk climate. Relating to my earlier remark, here is a question, that very likely your group has not heard yet: CO2 atmospheric concentration went up from roughly 280 to roughly 380ppm in the last 150 years or so. Also, carbon isotope ratio studies show significant support of a theory claiming major anthropogenic contribution to that. Can you show me where are the results of a set of thermodynamic calculations to show that this increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration matches the global air temperature change (in other words that this CO2 increase alone can account, according to theory, for the temp change observed)?
If you took the time to learn a bit more about climate science, you would understand why this is a strawman. Climate science isn't saying CO2 alone is to blame for the warming. It is saying CO2 and other GHGs are principle driving factors that are setting in motion all kinds of positive feedback effects.
The link between CO2 and other GHG and the measurable increase in temperature is trivially easy to demonstrate, and it has been done most visually in the famous Hockey Stick graph, first presented by Michael Mann in 1998, and subsequently revised and corroborated by numerous others in later years (deniers have done their best to crap on this graph, but it is accepted more or less as a fact by any reputable scientific organizations by now).
Finally, loyal to our mentor's (Carl Sagan) legacy, I and others, besides our regular work, are struggling for long years now to strengthen the image of science and reputation of the scientific community among the non scientific public (mainly through frontal appearances and also writing).
Very commendable. I only wish you would take the time to actually learn a bit about science. You demonstrate ably that you aren't well versed in scientific theory, and you are apparently unaware of your short comings at least when it comes to this particular subject.
Some of the GW community has caused enormous damage to this image (and definitely not only because of the high profile politician and businessman, fossil fuel hog that used to be AGW movement self appointed (I hope)"representative").
There is no GW community. There are scientists. There is no AGW movement, and Al Gore has nothing to do with climate science. This particular canard is one of the most common we see around here, and is usually the sign of a apprentice denier, one who has seen a few Youtubes and perhaps read some of Watt's articles on Wattsuphisbutt. It further demonstrates how ill equipped you are to grasp the strength of the theories supporting AGW, and that you willingly blind yourself with ideology rather than face the simple truth:
- The Earth is demonstrably warming.
- The warming will bring drastic changes to our environment.
- We are primarily responsible.
More cutting and pasting, with zero evidence that you understand the words. Dude, you are waaaaay out of your depth.
.
