On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:45:49 -0000 (UTC)
RJH <
patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
That wasn't my question. Which was related to skills and
understanding, and the need for both to understand climate science.
So you believe, based on evidence, that climate scientists such as
those listed in the link above don't understand what they're looking
at, and writing and talking about. They are informed by blind faith
('climate emergency', etc.) and any science they purport is made up.
They have rudimentary skills and effectively no understanding. Is
that what you mean by 'in awe'?
If you don't like those scientists, I have others:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/1900-scientists-say-climate-change-not-caused-co2-real-environment-movement-was
And your PhD academics, and others in this thread, do understand
climate science, but it's not clear to me what knowledge they have
above the very basic skills and knowledge of climate scientists. How
for example does having a PhD help, if (as you appear to be saying)
all that is needed is basic data and a calculator? Basic data and a calculator climate scientists seem to be unaware of.
You and others do seem to suggest elsewhere that you have strong
evidence, that you can't reveal, that links most climate scientists
to career chasing, greed, and fraud.
https://brownstone.org/articles/sciences-turn-towards-darkness/
To me, this all looks like a conspiracy theory.
Which generally means it's likely to be correct, from the experience of
the last decade or so.
*When* (if?) the 'climate change' gurus can say what climate changes
*will* occur in a number of broad regions of the planet and *get* *it*
*right*, I will start to pay attention to them. When a hypothesis is
shown to give reasonably accurate *predictions*, then it is a candidate
for consideration as a theory, not until then. I'm sure you know that
saying something like 'the science is settled' tells you more about the
person saying it than what they are selling.
It's no good pointing to changes of climate after they have occurred,
and saying 'see, we were right' unless they had actually predicted those
exact changes in those places *in* *advance*. A model is particularly
useless if it cannot even predict the known past, and we know that no
approved climate model can, because decades ago we saw documentaries
which showed CO2 rises *lagging* temperature rises, not leading them.
That's what the tree rings and the ice cores showed then, do they show something different now?
Have a look at this, and see if you can say why you wouldn't publish it
in a scientific journal for the 'real experts' to throw mud at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/covid-19-lab-leak-origin-most-likely-matt-ridley/
It's published here in the Telegraph because none of the well-known
journals would touch it. If you were looking into the origins of Covid,
would you want to read this and follow up some of the references, not necessarily to believe every word, but to at least think about it?
Because you wouldn't have been allowed to do so by the usual suspects.
Try this: it's a bit hard to follow for somebody not in this line of
business but the gist of it is obvious:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
You do need to look at 'alternative media'. Not necessarily to believe everything you read, but to follow up some of the references, most of
which are unimpeachable (?) government data. Nobody in their right mind believes the BBC any more, but the Guardian and the Telegraph are not necessarily much more truthful. Believe nothing, but read ideas and
evaluate them in the light of your own certain knowledge and
experience. E.g. do you believe Epstein had no clients? Look at the
definite lies you *know* you were told ('safe and effective') and think
about other things the same people said. And so on...
--
Joe
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)