Climate Doublespeak

  1. You should debate a climate scientist
  2. You aren’t qualified to debate a climate scientist

Apparently they won’t debate me because they are sure they would win.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Climate Doublespeak

  1. Aussie says:

    I hear this time and again – that only climate scientists are able to comment about climate.

    This is total rubbish and proves alarmists are only trying to avoid debate.

    Just because somebody does not hold a degree in an area does not mean that they cannot be knowledgeable and have a very strong grasp of the area.

    When I lived in the US I was friends with a guy who was a self taught stock trader. Year after year he would achieve 30-40% returns. He was NOT degree qualified but was very knowledgeable and his returns eclipsed nearly all professional money managers. By the alarmists standards this guy would not be allowed to talk about the stock market or trading – totally ridiculous…

  2. Jim says:

    Yes yes, because we all know geologists know nothing about the earth’s climate! /s

    Warmunists are constantly moving the goalposts.

    • Gator says:

      Geology was what got me into climatology. I was living in Europe, and I was an avid skier and hiker, when I discovered my fascination with ice ages. Later as a climatology, geology, and cartography student, I spent many years studying in the Earth Sciences department at a major university. The past forty years of my life have been spent trying to unravel the mystery of climate change through careful study of every burp, hiccup and giggle that comes out of the mouths and minds of those who are considered experts on the subject. But because I do not make my living from climate studies, I am told my opinion does not count.

      According to the logic of the left, only automotive engineers are capable of driving a car, and only medical doctors should take your temperature.

      • paul courtney says:

        Gator: A medical doctor can take your temperature, but only a climate scientist can adjust it. They can average it with the other patients, find “gaps”, infill, and find that you are catastrophically warming.

        • Gator says:

          Good point, Paul!

          On a related note, there is a “normal” temperature for human beings, but there is no “normal” temperature for this planet or any location on it.

        • Philip Verslues says:

          That is the most spot on description of an alarmist climate scientist I have ever read, Thanks

      • -B- says:

        This “leftist logic” of specialized experts was deliberately created.

        The original american concept of education would produce people like yourself or me or many others here. We have a field in which we make a living but study countless others. That is having an ability to function in many areas. People like us are difficult to rule over. So education, corporate, government, and other institutions were designed to produce and reward very specialized people who are helpless outside their profession. The modern public schools were deliberately designed (in the USA and elsewhere the Prussian system has been deployed) to kill self learning.

        It’s an unnatural state for a human being but it makes for a much easier to manage top down system.

        Now throw progressivism and technocracy into the mix and you get this you must be an institutionally approved expert or what you have to contribute doesn’t count. It’s simply a way of shutting out opposition and competition.

        The original american education was that people would learn the tools to apply in many areas. There’s no reason an engineer can’t analyze climate data, it’s no different than countless engineering analysis tasks, but it has to be compartmentalized so that only “climate scientists” analyze climate data to make sure of the desired political result. A climate scientist will do the analysis in such a way where his career will not be ruined. The person who makes his living elsewhere doesn’t have to worry about the results. The results are what they are.

        Thus outsiders are disruptive forces that must be kept out and discredited. And of course never debated honestly.

        • Aussie says:

          Very good summary!
          I was fortunate to be educated to be able to work things out from first principles, and be able to teach myself. One sees this in experienced tradespeople in particular.

          Unfortunately the young engineers now coming into the workforce in many cases simply cannot problem solve or work things out as their education has been to lap up what is handed to them.

          This will have serious consequences for companies and the US and Australia (the countries where I have worked, others may be similar) in the future.

  3. Kevin A says:

    Climate knowledge spans many scientific disciplines – atmoshperic physics, oceanography, geology, chemistry, biology, geography, meteorology, mathematical modelling etc. Someone with a climatology degree is not an expert in any one of these – it’s the general arts degree of science. I’d put more trust in a geologist who has studied climate for 25 years than someone who just completed their PhD in climatology.

  4. Al Shelton says:

    The chance of an “climate scientist” winning a debate with Tony is about the same as a person standing on the Florida Keys and trying to redirect a hurricane with a Walmart fan. IMO

  5. Mac says:

    I love the illogic of these lunatics. So, if I have a PhD in biochemistry I’m not qualified to comment on or debate someone about CO2 in the atmosphere? These people show their amazing ignorance of science constantly, and they’re totally unapologetic about it. They’re actually proud to just shut up and do what they’re told and follow their pseudoscience medicine men. Climate change is what Freud used to refer to as a “mass neurosis”. It’s just another in a very long line of fatalistic end-of-the-world religious cults. Obsessive-compulsive leftist totalitarianism at its finest.

  6. Bob Hoye says:

    I tell hostiles that climate change, which we used to call ice ages, is a subset of geophysics.
    And that I have a BSc in geology and physics. And have kept myself up to date in the subject.
    But because I condemn the nonsense about man-caused weather and climate, I am not a “climate scientist”.

  7. G W Smith says:

    To the left it’s all about titles and appearances and celebrity envy, because content of character can be faked.

  8. MrGrimNasty says:

    It’s all very easy to understand.

    Only climate ‘experts’ are qualified to comment except:-

    Self-enriching power-hungry politicians (Gore).
    Hypocritical celebrities (Leonardo)
    Uneducated brainwashed child puppets (Greta).
    National broadcaster embedded environmental activists (BBC’s Harrabin).
    etc.

    Essentially anyone is qualified to comment unless they are a filthy denier.

    Weather is weather when it contradicts climate change, but weather is climate when it supports climate change. Weather may be weather whilst the theory is adjusted to show that it was weather expected by climate change, then all weather is climate change.

  9. Hayden says:

    It takes primary school math and at best, high school physics to disprove the current carbon theory. No need to be a scientist, a high school student with a critical mind could see through it.

  10. Disillusioned says:

    Debating an alarmunist is like debating a petulant child. Or a pigeon….

  11. Hum says:

    Most climate scientists don’t have degrees in climate science.

  12. KevinPaul says:

    This just underscores how ill informed these adherents are, blind people led along by blind guides!
    They just don’t appreciate the complexities of the climate system. Their assertion that only climate scientists can understand the climate is like NASA only allowing refrigeration engineers to work on the Apollo missions.
    Little does she realise Geologists are very much involved in unraveling the climate paradox, they like many other disciplines see the science as far from settled.

    https://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html

  13. Bob says:

    Tony,
    The Wall Street Journal could use you as a columnist.
    Please do contact them.
    You’d get paid and have a much broader audience.
    Do the world some good.
    Thank you for what you do.

  14. Gwyn ap Nudd says:

    For some time I’ve been pondering what “climate science” actually is and have come up with the following definition:

    Climate Science is the use of computer models built using fake data and false assumptions to predict catastrophic events that will never happen in the real world.

  15. Arvid says:

    The church of Climatology is like many fundamentalist religions.
    The fact is if you were born in the middle east you would most likely be Moslem, Israel Jewish, Italy Catholic, Japan Buddhist , Northern Europe Lutheran, etc etc.
    Most of us like to hold on to our birth religion no matter what information may suggest it may not be the only truth.
    This is now the exact issue with climate change alarm- ism. Once its locked into the belief system all the evidence in the world still can’t seem to shift it.
    The difference between religious fundamentalism and climate fundamentalism is very similar.
    Only a truly open mind can allow evidence from every side to be considered.

  16. Douglas Rogalla says:

    looks like Twitter suspended you after your response to Piers — must have hurt his feelings

  17. Independent George says:

    Yet a mentally ill 16 yr old truant could tell her what to think and that would be fine.

    Not only do geologists understand past climates and sea levels, many of us studied electives – like landscape change and climatology.

    Ignore geos like Tony, Plimer, and David Middleton at your peril.

    • Matt D says:

      except that Middleton is a typical arrogant academically trained professional. He is just as guilty as cherry picking his data to fit his worldview, just like the left.

      I’ve seen it countless times on WUWT. He dismisses all the evidence for catastrophism and employs ad hominems against people like Randall Carslon…who by the way, far outclasses Middleton in scope of knowledge and perspective. It ain’t even close.

      I can’t stand DM. again, typical arrogant modern trained academic turned professional.

  18. Tel says:

    Climate Science as an independent discipline is only about 30 years old. Michael Mann is not a credentialed “Climate Scientist”, he studied Mathematics, Physics, and Geology.

    Phil Jones didn’t study “Climate Science”, he studied Environmental Sciences specializing in river flooding and drainage.

    Kevin E. Trenberth studied Meteorology.

    Henrik Svensmark (the guy with the cloud and cosmic ray theory) studied Physics and Engineering.

    At some stage, universities just decided it was time to start teaching “Climate Science” and making that a thing. Before it was no discipline, and afterwards is was a discipline.

    Here’s a tricky little secret though: every discipline started out that way. Credentials are simply a bunch of guys getting together and awarding themselves some cute certificates. Most people admit they don’t know much about the subject, so they “trust in the experts” and by that they mean, trust whoever declares themselves to be an expert loudly enough to get some media attention. People who don’t know about the subject are unable to judge for themselves who is an expert and who isn’t, so they go along with anyone getting a lot of exposure. A 16 year old who doesn’t go to school can be “expert” if she turns up on TV often enough.

    • Angus McFarlane says:

      Tel, I agree, Gavin Schmidt is also not a climate scientist. He is a mathematician and computer modeller with following qualifications:
      B.A. (Hons) Mathematics and PhD in Applied Mathematics

  19. “What is not done collectively cannot be good,” said International 1-5537. (Anthem, by Ayn Rand)
    The same pattern occurred under the prohibition amendment. From 1913 the argument was increased industrial production at better efficiency, the avatar of Satan part used mainly for simpletons. Before 1929 nobody would debate prohibitionists on the economic benefits of men with guns pressing confiscations, forfeiture, padlockings fines and chain gangs. After 1929 drys crossed the street to avoid debating wets on the economics of dry laws.

  20. fhsiv says:

    i’d say the average geologist has a better perspective on reality than the average climatologist. If only for the reason that a geologist will have a better grasp on the significance of time and history than one who is caught up in the hamster wheel of climate modeling.

    • Gator says:

      I had studied and tutored geology for several years before I took my first climatology class, and it was shocking to me how my climatology professor viewed climates. It was as if he was utterly unaware that climates actually change. IMHO a degree in climatology should start with deep study of geology, especially as it relates to paleo climatology.

  21. Gummans Gubbe says:

    At most places I have been you are called an expert if you can make useful, profitable predictions. If you don’t you are demoted or fired.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Climate Seance is different. Climate experts do make useful, profitable predictions, even though they are always wrong. I doubt you would be able to get your gubment grant money without the bad predictions. Heck, you might even get promoted to a higher position.

  22. George Davidson says:

    Tony I am suspicious that Canada’s temperature data has been tapered with.

    Regina seems to have gotten a lot cooler in the late 30’s .It was plus 47 no it shows less than 40 degrees . And the historical data seems to have gotten shorter.

    Can anyone or Tony verify what is going on in Canada with the temperature

  23. jb says:

    “sweetness” claims that Tony is a geologist and is therefore out of his depth discussing climate.

    So then, one must conclude that “sweetness” must agree that the report stating 96% of academia thinks global warming is real is BS as 98% of the 96% don’t have PhDs in climate.

    As well, then “sweetness” must agree that Adam Schiff on an “Intelligence” committee is something akin to an oxymoron too.

    [And just so we are clear, I think Tony is fantastic when it comes to discussing climate.]

  24. xenomoly.bloom says:

    The whole “You are not credentialed in field X” is the most dishonest strategy for ignoring a claim I have ever seen. Credentials in a field have nothing to do with the validity of a claim. They have nothing to do with evidence offered or quality of argument for a claim. It’s simply a way to sidestep the accountability people who are credentialed in field X claim to have.

    Its like a doctor refusing to debate an anti-vaxxer because the anti-vaxxer did not go to medical school. Its like an a priest refusing to debate an atheist because the atheist did not go to seminary.

    Its sad and pathetic that the modern left has been taken over by these anti-science Lysenkoists.

  25. networkdood says:

    The climate change agenda has been floating around for decades.
    Remember in the 70s when we were told we were headed for an ICE AGE?
    Much of what people think they know is a fraud.
    Just look at Bill Nye and Neil DegrASS Tyson.
    Tell Sweetness that appeals to Authority are not evidence of anything.

  26. Taphonomic says:

    I seem to remember a certain Dr. Michael Mann has his doctoral degree in geology and geophysics.

    Sweetness should tell him that he’s out of his depth.

  27. Tom Abbott says:

    One doesn’t have to be a climate scientist, or a scientist at all, to be able to tell the difference between evidence and speculation.

    If you can understand the difference, then you have alarmist climate science nailed. The Alarmists have no evidence. None whatsoever. All they have is speculation. That’s all they have. It’s easy to tell the difference. If you don’t believe it, just ask them for one bit of evidence to confirm what they claim. The alarmists won’t want to talk to you after you ask that question. Well, they might try to BS you if they sense you are not very knowledgeable about the subject. But as soon as yu show a little experise, they are out of there!

    And Tony is right: The Alarmists won’t debate Tony because they *are* afraid. They should be afraid because they don’t have any evidence to back up their speculations, and Tony is real good at exposing their distortions of reality.

    Alarmists don’t debate, and they censor anyone who doesn’t agree with them. If the alarmists could make a case for human-caused climate change, they would be eager to take on anyone who disagreed, but instead, the alarmists run away and hide. Why do they hide? We know why they hide. Because they got nothing!

    I love taunting the alarmists! it’s such an easy job, and I know for certain I won’t get any replies that refute what I say about their lack of evidence, because I have taunted them on numerous occasions and not once have they come back with even one shred of evidence. That would be because they don’t have a shred of evidence. Forty years and they have nothing. Yet they have fooled millions of people. It’s pathetic.

    Tony, can you tell me who exactly is in charge of the bastardization of the U.S. surface temperature record? It’s hard to tell who is doing what and I would like to notify my U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, as to whoever is in charge of the bastardization of the U.S. temperature record so that Senator Inhofe can request an explanation for why the Data Manipulators are changing a perfectly good U.S. surface temperature chart (actual temperatue readings) into a bogus, bastardized “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart. I need an address or a name to point Senator Inhofe at.

    Senator Inhofe will know what I’m talking about because he is very knowledgeable about the human-caused climate change hoax.

  28. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I started my BSc in Geology in 1985. At that time in the UK the only University doing anything on the climate was East Anglia. Until around 1988, when Hansen turned off the AC in Congress, there were very few Universtities offering climate studies courses anywhere in the world. Of course as soon as the money started rolling in…

  29. Phil Paulbeck says:

    The climate high priests will not tolerate heretics in their temples.
    Their lust for power is boundless, besides what else could they do for a living.

    • Disillusioned says:

      A handful likely have the qualifications for long careers in automobile license plate production and/or highway grounds keeping.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.