[LibWhacker]

Wow, extremely revealing -- and hilarious -- article. Junk scientists desperately seeking validation from real scientists. Another admission: Only mediocre science students go into climatology, as if we didn't already know that, etc.

[GOPJ]

Real scientists don’t want anything to do with environmentalists. This stuff’s beyond ‘junk science’ - it’s more in the realm of ‘voodoo science’...

[Da Coyote]

What do physicists call their classmates with D averages?

Climatologists.

[G Larry]

The first group of liars has lost all credibility, so they want to recruit some virgins into prostitution.

[FreedomPoster]

I’ve said for a long time that we need a Physicist like Richard Feynman to look into this, similar to how he was tapped to look into the Challenger disaster. If you’re not familiar with Feynman, I heartily recommend his books, he’s quite a character, and led a very interesting life.

The closest person we have similar today might be Freeman Dyson, and he has not been impressed by the Warmist Alarmists.

http://www.noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

[Pearls Before Swine]

Another admission: Only mediocre science students go into climatology, as if we didn't already know that, etc.

Yeah, after a while drinking the Kool-Aid, they can teach. After all, they're learning indoctrination, not doing research.

[centurion316]

A climatology article without a single mention of the oceans is beyond the meaning of science. The origins of climatology from the study of atmospheric phenomenon elements demonstrate how they are clueless.

[eyeamok]

Climatology is a science?? Kinda like Lesbian Dance Theory is a sport ?
These people are out of their minds.

[x]

I wonder which junk science genius came up with that (that random blobs of water vapor floating around in the atmosphere are the key to understanding). And in light of the claims of this article, how did he ever convince himself that it was true, given that he was incapable of doing the science himself? And why should we believe him? In an earlier time, he would've no doubt claimed it was random blobs of phlogiston. This whole article is an admission that climatologists have no clue how to do real science. It's akin to astrologers appealing to mathematicians to prove that astrology is true, or alchemists appealing to chemists to prove alchemy is true, etc. The whole article is full of such revelations. --LibWhacker

Whoever wrote this is reporting something, not necessarily advocating a position on scientific issues. Arguing that cloud formation is important isn't so different from arguing that sunspots or any other factor is important.

Who knows? Maybe it is. It's certainly a valid hypothesis that could be studied.

And how could you miss this, possibly an admission that climate change isn't "settled science," right in the article?

The perception that climate science is ‘solved’ is an inadvertent result of pressure on climatologists to convey a simple message to the public — for instance, that all dry regions will get dryer and all wet regions wetter in a warming climate, says Piers Forster, a climate modeller at the University of Leeds, UK. That has made the science “sound somewhat dull”, he says.

[BenLurkin]

budding researchers who might otherwise choose cosmology

[pallis]

It seems like a dangerous move for Climate fanatics to engage real science in the study of their faith. Climate science is the domain of charlatans and sleaze. Real science can only hurt the warming cause.

[TigersEye]

Global Warming Skeptics Question Authority

Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

German scientists reject man-made global warming

Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data

Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]

‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008

Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

[Stosh]

My favorite sentence in this farcical analysis:

“Although climate scientists agree on the basics — for example, climate change is primarily the result of human activity — large uncertainties persist in ‘climate sensitivity’, the increase in average global temperature caused by a given rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide.”

Translation: “We don’t really know how it’s happening - but we’re absolutely sure who’s responsible (and it’s *you*).

[a fool in paradise]

The warmunists need some patsies.