Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Care to explain how climate science is "embarrassingly flawed?" Is this a conclusion you have reached on you own analysis, or do you rely on the scientific opinions of others? If it is based on your own analysis, you might want to enlighten us on your scientific training so that we might have some perspective when we evaluate your view in comparison to the view of the scientists that have spent years and years studying the subject. If it is the opinions of others upon which you rely, you might share the sources that support your conclusion about the flawed nature of climate science. Might those sources be Rick Perry or Michelle Bachman?
Frankly, your apparent need to demean those who hold an opposing view seems to demonstrate a significant lack of confidence in the ability of your opinions to survive on their own merits.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Before weighing in on the topic some 7 or 8 years ago I open mindedly studied the available science being used to explain the advent of alarm over Anthropological Global Warming in adequate enough depth to formulate my own conclusions.
In summary the science is inconclusive enough on so many levels and points imo as to render alarmism on the issue as an elaborate and particularly irresponsible (in that people try to pass it off as the truth) travesty.
From the sobering application of geological time, to issues with claims about the absorption characteristics of various atmospheric gases and the behavour of their molecules in relation to radiation retention, as well as widely assumptive deductions with regards to the interactions and interdependencies of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their effects on one another including the completely theoretical premise of positive feedback, to glaring lack of completeness of any and all atmospheric models relied upon by IPCC scientists studying the issue, the science, by necessity is so speculative and creative as to better resemble an elaborate artistic indulgence for entertainment (as boring as it is) than any objective and measured scientific endeavour. Coming from a professional background rooted in mathematic science one would be inclined to view these conclusions supposedly gleaned from the prevailing science as applied to AGW theory to be premature at best, dishonest at worst, and embarrassing at the very least.