I've been following this whole silly, silly CAGW debate since 1993 when I first read John Daly's book. Throughout this whole period I've seen the same stupid assertion made by the warmists to try to close down debate....only climate scientists can criticise the so-called science. We see it here with Poirot et al...oh s/he tell us, this person's not a climate scientist and therefore can be ignored. Now it creates a problem when a bono fide climate scientist is a skeptic but then they fall back on the claim that that person is in the pay of big oil. Its all about finding a way to avoid having to think or check the data.

So we see Poirot post a graph which s/he clearly accepts without question because it comes from a climate scientist. But the merest checking reveals it to be a piece of propaganda devoid of any real value. And we saw warmair show that s/he hasn't or hadn't the faintest understanding of positive feedbacks even though they are critical to the whole story. Again, climate scientists said there would be warming that that's just fine for these people...no need to check further.

But what they don't realise is that climate science is only a part of the story. The Hockey Stick graph wasn't climate science, it was a statistical exercise. No new research was done. Previously gathered data was just reassembled in a way that provided the answer that was required. But when the two Macs and others started tearing it apart, the same mantra came out....oh they're not climate scientists so they don't get a say. But when the Hockey Stick graph was finally destroyed it was the statisticians who did it. So much of climate science is about statistics but the high priests of the religion try to exclude the statistician from the discussion.

/cont

/cont
There is every chance that the sun plays some role in the warming and cooling of the planet but again solar scientists are told they have no part to play in climate science. The (in)famous 97% figure specifically excluded solar and cosmic scientists from the calculation.

In a similar vein, economists play a part in the process, or should. When the models run their projection they have to be told the level of CO2 emissions projected down the years and that is determined by projections of economic activity. Economists make those calculations and pass them to the modelers. Yet when other economists like Henderson seek to critique the calculations they are told that they aren't climate scientists and therefore don't get a say.

I'm not a climate scientists but I'm perfectly capable of following an argument, following the data and checking the conclusions. I'm not able to calculate the projected change in projected warming in 2100 due to Australia's CO2 tax, but I'm quite capable of doing back of the envelope calculation that tell me that its vanishingly small. I'm not a climate scientist but I know that when someone says we can't have more than a 15yr stalling in the warming without calling the whole theory into question, its significant when we get such a period. I'm not a climate scientist but I know that when the IPCC tells us the Himalayas will be ice-free by 2035 and we find out that was just a made up number, that's significant. I'm not a climate scientist but I know that when someone tells us we'll never have dam filling rains again, and then the dams fill, its significant.


Sitting on your hands and saying you accept whatever the climate scientists tell you, including believing them when they tell you to not listen to anyone else, isn't following the science. Its an abdication of thinking

You're absolutely right, mhaze.

You should ignore all the climate scientists. It's much more plausible for you and other "skeptics" to stick to the blogosphere and imbibe your information and affirmation from non-climate scientists who challenge the qualified scientists on the science.

After all, what would an atmospheric physicist, an oceanographer or a paleo-climatologist be able to tell you that any amateur blogger couldn't rustle up to the applause of their "skeptical" entourage with Microsoft Excel and a flask of coffee.

And phooey to peer-review. What an over-blown device. Any review should be conducted on any of the "skeptic" sites by the author's "skeptic" mates.....and if a scientific journal happens to reject a paper that has been "pal-reviewed" the author is hereby officially allowed to stamp his feet and scream - "It's an elitist conspiracy designed to exclude the plebs!"

Go to it, "skeptics" - your public awaits

ummmm, Poirot, I think you rather missed the point of my post. But then I have observed that your reading skills are not what one would hope for.

Still you are consistent. Don't analysis anything told to you by your favoured scientists and don't think about anything anyone else tells you. Just regurgitate the same old sarcastic drivel.

mhaze,

Why should I "analyse" your most recent posts? I read them and they are merely a regurgitation of the type of "skeptical" cherry-picked comments I've read a hundred times before.

I got the point of your post.

Next time you're feeling poorly, I imagine you'll bypass the docs and pop down to your local CWA Hall for advice.

Good luck with that.

Then again, mhaze, it looks like you're in the minority - could be an uphill battle....

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climatechange-denial-feels-the-heat-20130112-2cmhu.html