news.mit.edu
wattsupwiththat.com
According to Leaf, whoever she is…?
Just because he has a Wikipedia page about him? There is nothing in that page to make his blog more authoritative or trustworthy than NASA. What you then quoted was a bunch of things Steve claimed. But still no reason to trust his opinions over NASA.LeafByNiggle:
Steve McIntyre is actually quite well-known…
And we still have no reason to trust that you are any more “authoritative or trustworthy” than Steve McIntyre. He, at least, has a Wikipedia page about him. As far as we know, you do not, so your level of authority and trustworthiness does not even rise to the level of Steve McIntyre’s. A little humility here might be in store, no?
You don’t seem to be able to distinguish one “interpretation” from another interpretation.
The individuals who put men on the moon were not the same ones who currently staff NASA. NASA has moved its focus away from what made it great years ago. Ergo, your argument doesn’t hold.
The guys that did the moon jobs etal are on record against NASA’s current position.
And this is a bad thing?
I’d say he’s spending time looking for data that questions the climate models. This is not the same as questioning the basic physics of global warming.
It is just your opinion that NASA is not reputable now. I think they are. And so is NOAA, which also does not agree with Steve.LeafByNiggle:
The individuals who put men on the moon were not the same ones who currently staff NASA.
NASA has moved its focus away from what made it great years ago.
Your “question” assumes something that has not been agreed to, namely that the intelligent persons at NASA and NOAA do not relate or support the complete truth.\
Nope. You are not going to convince me that there is an incentive for NASA and NOAA scientists to support a deceptive narrative. But as for incentive, I think Steve has far more incentive to stretch the truth, since he has staked his reputation on discrediting global warming from the beginning.
No, it just doesn’t particularly add to his reputability.LeafByNiggle:
And this is a bad thing?
It still is. And it is done scientifically, not by publishing a blog.
No. Legitimate climate scientists are still investigating global warming, and even publishing (as we saw in the MIT report cited earlier) data that challenges the current understanding. Steve is not part of this process. He’s got no credentials that would make the average person have to take him seriously.
judithcurry.com
And now you are suddenly an expert on all things Steve and without hint of bias have ruled that he’s “got no credentials.”
You appear to have no preconceptions or proclivities regarding the “authorized” and “expert” view which you accept fully on the basis of the reputation of those who promote that view. And since anyone who does not accept that view cannot be considered, by you, to have any repute or credibility, the absolutely closed circular reasoning of your view thus immunizes you against any possibility of doubt about the “expert” position.
I haven’t seen any yet that would qualify him to have his word taken over NASA. But of course I am open to being proven wrong, if such stellar credentials show up.
I do place a lot of stock in reputation. That is true.
…a false assumption, which invalidates the conclusion you draw from it.
I will assume this is sarcasm, and you really mean “isn’t science quite fallible.” The answer is that science has proven to be less fallible than any other means of discovering how the physical world operates. In fact, it has been getting better and better as the network of scientists grows and results are examined and challenged by more and more scientists.
They are experts because they have proven themselves to be the most competent in their field.