[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) My experience has been that you've never produced any 'scientific' evidence of failure on the part of the scientific community to 'prove' global climate change.
2) You have shared 'pseudo-scientific propaganda' which is aligned with climate denial.
3) I've read every citation you've shared and none of S-O's reporting has stood up to the rigor of the counterfactual scientific reporting.
4) By default, you've unwittingly, or wittingly shared bogus information.
5) Therefore, I can't give S-O a pass. Kinda why it's completely dismissed by the scientific community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) I've begun a list of scientific 'tools' NASA and their collaborators use to observe, measure, analyze, and reach conclusions from, with regard to 'any' topic they report on.
7) Anyone introduced to the 'scientific method' would 'KNOW' that S-O simply does not have the education, budget, resources, data-reduction capability, nor knowledge of the extreme statistical tools required to make heads or tails of the raw data collected by scientists.
8) An entire life-savings from Ben wouldn't pay for the cost of a single computational iteration of any of the extant global circulation models used by climate, or any other kinds of scientists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I've seen enough people killed by bad 'intelligence'. I've no appetite for more.
If you're at ease sending innocents to a certain death by default, presently, you're permitted to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 'religion' doesn't allow it. Expect push-back.

More gaslighting