You might try not misrepresenting yourself.
Paul Goode

Read the reply thread of Trevor Bird to my original comment and my replies to him, and all will become clear. One does not need to be a climatologist oneself to know when their research is being grossly misrepresented by others. Others who themselves are not climatologists either. It is not sound science I object to; it is the misuse of sound science by those grinding their own axe for their own political purposes.

My background in science certainly is an advantage in understanding the work of other scientists; an advantage not shared by the lion’s share of those commenting with such certainty that they know what the future will be under any set of assumptions. No one has ever predicted the future climate correctly, and the Warmists so far have an unbroken string of failed predictions.

And since you refer to me as a “denier” and “shill”, it’s clear that you too are a convinced Warmist. By your own standards, you can’t hold that opinion unless you are a climatologist. If you are not one, then you certainly can cite the original work of climatologists whose endorsement of the conclusion “humans are causing global warming which is causing catastrophic climate change” has convinced you. I’m willing to bet that your conviction is based solely on the words of politicians and journalists who also are not scientists of any flavor; yet you believe them.

I’m willing to bet that you hold your conviction because you have swallowed whole the “97% consensus” lie. If that statistic were true, then great panels of climatologists would be holding public debates to silence the deniers; but not one such debate has ever been accepted, though “deniers” have many times offered to debate publicly. If it walks like a duck, and quacks……

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.