Climate Koch up.

[PsychoSerenity]

Very few climatologists have the needed math and physics backgrounds to make any predictions besides hot air. I'd trust an expert climatologist about as much as I'd trust an expert astrologer.

What are you basing that on? To get a job as a climatologist you're going to need at least a degree in meteorology which will cover specific areas of maths and physics and likely have good qualifications in both those subjects as prerequisites. Look, here you go.

[Clinton Huxley]

One should never base ones opinions on peer-reviewed papers written by experts, one should instead go to a higher and more reliable source - op ed pieces written by political ideologues for right-wing magazines. They have the truth.

[pErvinalia]

A news report (New Zealand Herald 26 January) implicates American brothers Charles and David Koch as billionaire donors to an anonymous donor trust, to feed millions of dollars into a climate change denial program. Is this corruption or what?

Actually, it's capitalism. Welcome to the shit we deserve.

By the way, here's link to this story. http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 66312.html

[pErvinalia]

What's the problem? So the opposition to AGW will be stronger. Big deal. Surely this only means climatologists will have to sharpen their pencils and check their weather stations a bit more to rebut the denialist claims thus advancing the science.

Yeah, coz science is what matters to politicians.

[Tyrannical]

Very few climatologists have the needed math and physics backgrounds to make any predictions besides hot air. I'd trust an expert climatologist about as much as I'd trust an expert astrologer.

What are you basing that on? To get a job as a climatologist you're going to need at least a degree in meteorology which will cover specific areas of maths and physics and likely have good qualifications in both those subjects as prerequisites. Look, here you go.

Woefully inadequate in the math and physics, barely a year of calculus. Climate change questions should be left to the people with a specialized math and physics PhD. That's why I think they are full of hot air, they aren't even remotely qualified to speak on the subject scientifically.

[PsychoSerenity]

Very few climatologists have the needed math and physics backgrounds to make any predictions besides hot air. I'd trust an expert climatologist about as much as I'd trust an expert astrologer.

What are you basing that on? To get a job as a climatologist you're going to need at least a degree in meteorology which will cover specific areas of maths and physics and likely have good qualifications in both those subjects as prerequisites. Look, here you go.

Woefully inadequate in the math and physics, barely a year of calculus. Climate change questions should be left to the people with a specialized math and physics PhD. That's why I think they are full of hot air, they aren't even remotely qualified to speak on the subject scientifically.

Again, what are basing that on? It's quite clear from degree I linked that at a minimum they will have necessarily studied maths and physics to an advanced level in a specialised area. What makes you qualified to say who is and isn't qualified to talk about climate change? Would you care to show a significant body of climate research that has been let down by the scientists' deficient level of knowledge in maths and physics? Otherwise you are full of hot air.

[Clinton Huxley]

Some kind of weird "No True Scotsman" fallacy going on here.

[FBM]

[macdoc]

Ty you're full of shit.

First - the physics underlying AGW is NOT complex. It's very straight forward. and has been understood for a century or more.
Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
The outcomes of AGW re indeed complex which is why models are required to both hind cast for testing purposes and forecast under a variety of scenarios.
Lead climatologists like Gavin do indeed have the math background for that task

Gavin A. Schmidt

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011.

More information about his research and publication record can be found here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... n-schmidt/

Unlike the retired weatherman central to the deniosphere....Gavin and others have the qualifications, hands on experience and knowledge to make qualified assessments like this

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

Email him - tell him he's unqualified and why he's wrong about AGW
gammon@chem.washington.edu

How about in your own words you do a test run here for your Noble prize winning thesis.

[Jason]

What's the problem? So the opposition to AGW will be stronger. Big deal. Surely this only means climatologists will have to sharpen their pencils and check their weather stations a bit more to rebut the denialist claims thus advancing the science.

Yeah, coz science is what matters to politicians.

Yeah, coz science should just pump out propaganda and have an agenda becuz this is serious dood.

[JimC]

Very few climatologists have the needed math and physics backgrounds to make any predictions besides hot air. I'd trust an expert climatologist about as much as I'd trust an expert astrologer.

What are you basing that on? To get a job as a climatologist you're going to need at least a degree in meteorology which will cover specific areas of maths and physics and likely have good qualifications in both those subjects as prerequisites. Look, here you go.

Woefully inadequate in the math and physics, barely a year of calculus. Climate change questions should be left to the people with a specialized math and physics PhD. That's why I think they are full of hot air, they aren't even remotely qualified to speak on the subject scientifically.

These days, major projects such as climate modelling are run by multi-disciplinary teams, with whatever combination of scientific, mathematical and programming skills are required to get the job done.

[Tero]

One should never base ones opinions on peer-reviewed papers written by experts, one should instead go to a higher and more reliable source - op ed pieces written by political ideologues for right-wing magazines. They have the truth.

[pErvinalia]

Very few climatologists have the needed math and physics backgrounds to make any predictions besides hot air. I'd trust an expert climatologist about as much as I'd trust an expert astrologer.

What are you basing that on? To get a job as a climatologist you're going to need at least a degree in meteorology which will cover specific areas of maths and physics and likely have good qualifications in both those subjects as prerequisites. Look, here you go.

Woefully inadequate in the math and physics, barely a year of calculus. Climate change questions should be left to the people with a specialized math and physics PhD. That's why I think they are full of hot air, they aren't even remotely qualified to speak on the subject scientifically.

You really have no fucking idea what you are talking about, do you? If a climatologist doesn't have the necessary skills to study climate, who does? Fox News?!?

[pErvinalia]

What's the problem? So the opposition to AGW will be stronger. Big deal. Surely this only means climatologists will have to sharpen their pencils and check their weather stations a bit more to rebut the denialist claims thus advancing the science.

Yeah, coz science is what matters to politicians.

Yeah, coz science should just pump out propaganda and have an agenda becuz this is serious dood.

Huh?

[FBM]

guy has all the math and physics training needed to know whether or not the data point to the conclusions that the overwhelming majority of scientists, climatologists or otherwise, derive from it.