One of the first things that raised my antenna about climate change alarmists was the circular nature of the arguments. To be a “climate change expert”, agree with the consensus. Disagree with the consensus, and no matter what your background or credentials you either don’t understand the “science”, or you’re a paid stooge of the oil companies.
Again, look to the primary literature. Whatever has gone on in the mainstream press or among popular bloggers or print authors, it is in the primary literature that you will see the observations, experiments, ans simulations that have led to the building up of a scientific consensus.
As I said, you would have no way of knowing what I know, what I’ve read, or what my background is. The only evidence you have that I haven’t looked to the primary literature is that I find it less compelling than you.
You have no idea how compelling or not I find the primary literature. I would assert, however, that familiarity with it would overcome your sense of how the scientific consensus on climate science has emerged. That is what we were discussing.
It’s also kind of a first world thing. Diet is the new religion. And because we live in such a culture of abundance, we have the luxury of pointing at other people while they’re eating and declaring, “Yer doin’ it wrong!”
My my,
If, contrary to available evidence, I insisted erroneously on a matter of fact in my posts, then one could, from my posts, understand that there was something lacking in my familiarity with the evidence. I would not object to that case being made.
You are actually very easy to read.
Ahhh… are you alluding to posts in which posters imagine things not about available facts but about another poster’s mindset or motives? Those posts, about person not content, are in fact not consistent with forum guidelines.
www.upi.com
The dinos were practicing slash and burn:upside_down_face: