Understanding Science Credentials

On my twitter feed this morning I found out what leftists mean by science credentials, and what their criteria are for listening to people about climate.

Steve Goddard on Twitter:

Forty years working as a scientist and engineer makes my opinion irrelevant, but being a “badass black lady” makes you a trusted authority.

Steve Goddard on Twitter: “Let me refresh your memory, Maddie.… “

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Understanding Science Credentials

  1. Anon says:

    Jordan Peterson just took a similar hit… you are a pseudo-scientist, he disposed of that in a rather unexpected manner:

    Jordan Peterson | Cambridge Union


    He also disposes of CAGW theory in the most shocking manner possible in this segment here: “No!”


    • MGJ says:

      What a contrast (in the second link) between his lack of certainty but intelligence and thoughtfulness, and the blind certainty of the apparently thoroughly indoctrinated questioner.

  2. Gator says:

    It has nothing to do with credential, obviously. It has everything to do with politics, and having the politically correct opinion. It also has everything to do with state sponsored ignorance. Thanks Jimmy Carter!

    The United States Department of Education (ED or DoED), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.

    • Johansen says:

      Yes, you can’t get away from it, either. Even the **Math** books are using man-made global warming examples as end-of-chapter problems.
      Typical example: “Here’s a graph of melting sea ice…. when will we be ice-free?”

  3. Spiritus Mundi says:

    All climate scientist believe in CAGW. You do not believe in CAGW. You are not a climate scientist. Syllogism 101.

  4. BobW in NC says:

    I’ve run into the exact same thing when I critique evolution on Twitter, and show that it is not science, just ideology as is “climate change. PhD in Zoology, emphasis on mammalian physiology, some clinical pathology, 45 years applied experience in the laboratory, but I don’t know what I’m talking about… Sad. I understand your frustration, Tony.

    • EdB says:

      ??? really?

      • Gator says:

        Yeah, really.

        Most people have never questioned the orthodoxy of the theory evolution, and most have no idea what questions to even ask, as they are completely unaware of their vast ignorance on the subject.

    • ChrisC says:

      Is your contention that evolution doesn’t exist, or that the broadly known model (meaning that most people know about it) is incorrect or insufficient?

      • William Quinn says:

        Not the evolution blog, but Science should never be afraid of new discoveries, and the researchers should never be attacked for pursuing their research. That, at least, seems to be a valid connection, and also a problem in many areas today.

      • Johansen says:

        ChrisC: microevolution, yes… no one debates that. Macro evolution we do not observe. No new speciation observed, although attempted for over 100 years on everything from fruit flies to mice. Darwin didn’t write a book entitled, “How existing species change over time”; he wrote a book on the Origin of (New) Species. The only diagram in his magnum opus was a ‘tree of life’, which he pulled out of his ass. We don’t observe a tree of life. If anything, we observe “a lawn”, or a very complex, mixed, tangled web. No speciation, and no innovative body plans = no Darwin. In fact, if you really look into it, the “Modern Synthesis” is being abandoned like a sinking ship. There are several new groups, now, trying to replace the Modern Synthesis with something else; and I’m not talking about ID, either

  5. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    “97% of climate scientists” is a misquote anyway.

    I’m pretty sure it was “97% of scientists” – just ‘scientists’ – not ‘climate scientists’.

    The set of ‘scientists’ covers a lot of very flaky types who know sod-all about atmospheric physics; e.g. sociologists, nutritionists, psychologists, neuro-scientists, linguists, library scientists and political scientists (FFS!).

    • JCalvertN(UK) says:

      I must correct myself (slightly): The actual quote was that ‘97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change’.

      Richard Tol demolishes it here: http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html

    • Disillusioned says:

      I really believe it depends on which version of 97% you want to go with. I recall the original 97% BS was from respondents who answered a few questions. They had science degrees. A very few of them responded. 97% of them said they believe the earth is warming, and (I think) they agreed that man had some influence.

      The fraudulent 97% paper from Cook of “Skeptical Sceance” infamy – the ex-cartoonist and Nazi wannabe – came later.

      • Gator says:

        This explains the ludicrous contortions leftist propagandists went in order to reach their 97% claim.

        “An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists…. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

        And here were the questions asked:

        1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
        2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

        Significant can be 10%. Note that there was no opportunity in the survey (which was not subject to peer, or any other review, which explains its blatant flaws) to quantify or even discuss what part natural variability had to play. They sent out 10,257 surveys, received 3146 replies (seems that most Earth scientists were not even concerned enough to reply), and used only 79 to come up with a 97% consensus that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, and man may have been a minor contributor. By their ‘figuring’ that means that 2.5% of those who responded to the survey agree the Earth has warmed. EARTH SHATTERING!!!

        This is the sort of manipulation that warmists use to fool the public into thinking we have a problem. Truth be told, I would answer ‘yes’ to question 1, and ‘maybe’ to question 2.

        If you do not understand that you have been duped by the grantologists, I have a very nice bridge for sale, and 97% of bridge experts say you should definitely buy it no matter what the cost.

        • Disillusioned says:


          Thank you for the specifics. I knew I had the gist of it.

          Sadly, AGW cult believers won’t let facts get in the way of their beliefs (the fraudulent fantasy that it’s a solid 97% of ‘climate scientists’ that mankind has caused “climate change” and a catastrophic tipping point of global warming).

  6. roaddog says:

    Surely a psychiatric nurse knows everything about climate.

  7. nfw says:

    Is that a dead baby seal carcass behind the pollie bear? I wonder if Ms 97% understands that pollie bears can swim?

  8. Griff says:

    Scientists don’t label other views on the science as being those of ‘leftists’… they debate and/or refute the evidence using science. I submit that you aren’t a scientist but a political commentator. and this is not now a climate blog, but a political blog, espousing the doctrine of the right hand side of the Republican view in the US.

    • Jack Miller says:

      Griff, this blog is not yours and no one is forcing you to read the content.
      It does not really matter if you agree or disagree with what is written here and maybe this is your time to find a blog site that you are more comfortable with that won’t hurt your feelings.

    • Rah says:

      I submit that Griff is just another ignorant troll and would go away eventually if ignored.

      • spike55 says:

        No Rah.. he would feel lonely and deprived without his daily yap.

        He CANNOT stop. He cannot break free of his NEED.

        This is his DESPERATE plea for attention… any attention at all.

    • spike55 says:

      You can submit whatever meaningless yapping you like, griffool.

      It is invariable WRONG anyway.
      But that is the big difference between a AGW blog and a science blog.
      TH let’s AGW apologists/morons like you have a yap.

      You are a far-left, evidence free AGW apologist/troll with a meaningless existence. Your comment are irrelevant to rational discussion. That is the REASON you make them.

      The fact that you don’t even recognise the AGW agenda as a purely POLITICAL one shows just how incredibly DUMB you really are.

      Found any empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2 yet..

      … or are you just going to keep ranting mindless AGW propaganda pap.

  9. Adrian says:

    Do you need to be a ‘climate scientist’ to find errors made by ‘climate scientists’? How does that work? If you are not a ‘climate scientist’ and despite that, you find an error: https://github.com/ddbkoll/PyRADS/issues/2 does that mean that the computer model in question actually worked right by magic?

  10. William Quinn says:

    “Leftists base their beliefs on what they think other people believe.” I think you nailed something there. It’s a big party in high school and nobody wants to rock the boat by thinking for themselves. It’s on TV, it’s taught in elementary school. I guess I believe it to. Baa-aah.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *