By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”
According to USA Today on April 3rd and repeated on April 4th:
“Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.”
“Baugues studied engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute and has spent six years at the Department of Environmental Management and nine years with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” USA Today
So what did Keith Baugues write such that USA Today chose to identify him as “not a scientist”?:
“He took to a government message board one day in February, complaining that his normal 45-minute commute had turned into a painful three-hour slog. “Anyone who says global warming is obviously suffering from frostbite,” he wrote.”
“Baugues would later say he was only joking. But he wasn’t just any government bureaucrat. Baugues is assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the man in charge of cleaning up Indiana’s air.” USA Today
And what was the predictable response to an “assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality” joke and declaration that “I am a skeptic on global warming”?:
“Reaction was swift, according to remarks posted to the message board reviewed by The Indianapolis Star. Several IDEM staff members wrote that the comment flew in the face of nearly unanimous scientific consensus and offended and embarrassed them.
“Either support consensus science or please keep your opinions to yourself. The rest of us are embarrassed by your unwillingness to accept what is happening,” one worker wrote.
Another said that Baugues “should not speak on such matters until he is better informed.” Then that person, who was not named, took pains to point out that recent extremes of cold weather were caused by warming global temperatures. That resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.” USA Today
The assertion that “warming global temperature” “resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.” is demonstrably false. Even the author of the paper that this assertion has based upon has backtracked and said “I also agree that greenhouse-gas induced warming will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of breaking cold temperature records” Dot Earth
The claims of Baugues detractors appear to be empty rhetoric, e.g.:
“‘The fact that [Baugues] disparages the exact kind of science that disproves his statement only further illustrates how out of touch this administration is with the current environmental crisis facing not only Hoosiers, but the entire world,” the person wrote.'”
Furthermore, USA Today uses two duplicitous canards in claiming that:
More than 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, according to several studies published on the NASA website.”
Firstly, the 97 percent number has been demonstrated to be false and the claim that “warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities” is erroneous, because there is no credible evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were sufficient to influence Earth’s Temperature. In fact NASA’s website actually states that:
“Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.”
Duplicity aside, USA Today’s “not a scientist” attack is similar to one that was leveled against our own Willis Eschenbach by this site PopularTechnology.net, i.e.:
“He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).”
Popular Technology cites Webster’s definition of a Scientist to support their assertion, i.e.:
“a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”
PopularTechnology.net claims that:
“Willis has no educational background or any professional experience as a scientist. The only thing he can be considered is an amateur scientist.”
However, Webster is but one definition of a scientist, so let’s take a look at the others. Dictionary.com defines a scientist as:
“an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.”
“a person who studies or practices any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods”
Oxford Dictionary defines a scientist as:
“A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences”
Google Dictionary defines a scientist as:
“a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”
Wikipedia defines a scientist as:
“A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.”
In terms of Webster’s definition of a scientist as “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”, it is shown to be inaccurate by the fact that Einstein was a Patent Clerk when he wrote the Annus Mirabilis papers:
“The Annus Mirabilis papers (from Latin annus mīrābilis, “extraordinary year”) are the papers of Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four articles contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter. The Annus Mirabilis is often called the “Miracle Year” in English or Wunderjahr in German.”
“At the time the papers were written, Einstein did not have easy access to a complete set of scientific reference materials, although he did regularly read and contribute reviews to Annalen der Physik. Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few. He worked as an examiner at the Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland, and he later said of a co-worker there, Michele Besso, that he “could not have found a better sounding board for his ideas in all of Europe”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
So what do you think, what defines a scientist?
Roger Dewhurst says:
April 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm
“It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.”
These days, for one thing, the consequences for an engineer in most fields whose “model” doesn’t work can be devastating (bridges, airplanes, electrical grids, pipelines, railways, hospital emergency rooms, space travel, dams, tunnels, …..). We are surrounded and take for granted, by and large, the marvel that is the product of engineering design in our daily lives. Many things in the domain of the engineer are purloined by science or seen by even extraordinary individuals as being science. The very misnomer rocket science is an obvious example of this. These days, I think engineers are still doing the job.
Real scientists of the above anachronistic definitions are actually few in number both historically and in present times (would it be naughty to say that more than 97% wouldn’t meet the strict definitions). With comparatively little real new stuff being discovered, and briar pipes, horn-rimmed glasses and white lab coats now passe (that was the first attempt to distinguish themselves), they have taken to dividing the hard sciences into dozens and dozens of new sciences and borrowing from their poor cousins in social sciences, adding the suffix “science(s)” to the names so there would be no mistake, this to occupy the unmanageable hoards that are churned out at an ever increasing pace (a consequence of the open door demo_cratizing of the admittance process for ungifted candidates for higher learning), taken on titles as Heads or Chairs of improbable fanciful departments, taken to stealing each others and their students ideas and publishing quadrillions of largely useless pages (14,000 papers in only a decade on climate science alone – that’s what struck me as remarkable, not the 97 percent consensus- you would need a consensus to jam this many through). Did you know that the leader of the Ship of Fools is a leading researcher in the Centre of Excellence for Wifty Poofery and Clutzography Sciences? Did you know that after his voyage he was given a lofty Award for his work? Did you know that the Nobel Committee is in talks with Cracker Jack TM to streamline handing out of prizes? (that’s only rumored, but I can see the benefits of it). What is a scientist, then? In keeping with the historic definitions, Willis Eschenbach is indeed a scientist. Many of those in your history books were “amateur scientists”. No link – I leave this for your homework.
We have to accept that having a Ph.D., does not suggest what was the subject of your Ph.D thesis? One candidate was writing a Ph.D thesis, on the effect on students who only had one pair of shoes to wear to school. Yes – I jest not! I would have loved to do a science degree, but my mathematics was so poor, I could not work out the science calculator. One has to be good at chemistry and physics too. Both requiring a good mathematics background. But archaeology and palaeoanthropology suited me best. And ancient history. But I got a Distinction in a quantitative analysis project of a wall of rock art. I even passed producing a stone age arrow flint. (Plus bruised fingers) I enjoyed archaeology and palaeo, it explained the phases of human and their hominid evolutionary paths. And one thing for sure, climate dictated how they survived as hunter and gatherers, and how they utilized resources to farm. One thing we found out, was the landscape and climate dictates how humans make an income (survival tactics) and one place through its rock art described the animals and people in an area which was once grasslands, and is now desert..
So climate does dictate how we can live, and grow crops and farm animals. And mother nature kills us off when an imbalance arrives.
I can’t declare I am a scientist, but I sure know how humans were effected by climate changes, and what forces are involved that dictate our weather patterns. Humans are forced to adapt, and those that cannot die off. That’s called evolution.
PS. Science and forensic science is used in archaeology and palaeoanthropology by the way.
They are not like Indiana Jones. It’s the methodology they use and data available that supplies the hypothesis. And not all archaeologists make the correct presumptions without the back up of other disciplines, who examine remains and give a scientific result.
Let’s end this discussion on a lighter note, a scientist is anyone who uses scientific methodology to arrive at a scientific result. Those that presume they have used scientific methods, can be challenged. Corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis is not on. It happens. On a lighter note, if someone blames a mouse has moved two hundred yards up a mountain because of climate change, fails to produce other variables that can account for this. Like being chased by predators. A thesis or hypothesis to claim it is correct, is usually examined by others to confirm their findings. This is what Mann et al have been unable to do universally.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 7:44 pm
You made this strawman argument already, are you going try and address what was said in its actual context or not?
I did not present a strawman argument, I presented your words and asked if you can provide evidence to support them.
With a resume like his, consistency is the last thing he is known for. You seem to be unable to read sentences as well. Did you not notice the “or” in my statement?
Placing an “or” in a sentence does not give you carte blanche to make inaccurate statements, e.g. X person is a liar or they have not corrected the people who said that they are a liar. Unless you can present evidence that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”, the sentence, “or” included, is still inaccurate and unfair.
And presented out of context. That statement was made followed by three clear examples to support the allegation. I ask again;
Are you intellectually dishonest?
No, and given that you are hiding behind an “or”, this is a situation where you should be reflecting rather than accusing.
How does it feel to live in fantasy land?
Probably similar to how it feels to cling to ones degree and pretend to be smarter and more capable than those who learned outside of an academic environment. It might surprise you, but some people don’t need to sit in a classroom in order to learn. Furthermore, some people undertake scientific research and endeavors because they enjoy them, rather than being compensated to undertake them.
If I apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms am I now a scientist?
Yes, the subject matter of what you choice to research is irrelevant, it is it the process that matters, i.e.:
“The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[12] Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world.[13] The scientific method also improves itself in the same way,[14] meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge.[15][16] For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.[17]
The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[18] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[19] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order. As noted by William Whewell (1794–1866), “invention, sagacity, [and] genius”[20] are required at every step:
Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in “Why is the sky blue?”, but can also be open-ended, as in “How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?” This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[21]
Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein’s equivalence principle or Francis Crick’s “DNA makes RNA makes protein”,[22] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.
Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes’ Theorem.)
Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[23] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.
Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
If you where to undertake the scientific method to evaluate the most effective way to open a bag of M&Ms, you would be wasting your time, but carrying out science and would be a scientist. Conversely, if you have 5 PHDs in various areas of science and have a job as the “chief scientist” for some organization, but you do not leverage the scientific method, you are not a scientist.
Please list his relevant scientific credentials (education or experience) in relation to climate science.
Has researched, written and defended hundreds of articles on the most read climate science website:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/weschenbach/
Science does not define one’s education or job, it defines the process one uses to discover.
Perpetual strawman, those were not my words. That was a distorted out of context presentation of them.
It is was not an inaccurate statement but a completely valid one based on the evidence I provided. That was not a single case but multiple misrepresentations in major newspapers that he was all aware of. Do you wish me to find more? I can invest the time but thought three was enough to make my point. Willis fanboys never learn.
Then present my statements in their proper context.
Strawman, that is not my argument, this is you defending your lack of credentials. People can learn in many ways, none of which makes them a scientist.
ROFLMAO! So anyone who applies the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms is now a scientist!!! Should people list this on their resume?
Nothing like following the idiocy road.
Shall he use this on his resume under the title “Climate Scientist”?
ROFLMAO! Stop it this hurts so bad.
Also please learn to do real research and cite valid sources not Wikipedia which can be edited by a 5 year old.
Peter Miller says:
April 6, 2014 at 1:33 am
. . . . .
In my opinion, geologists know the most about climate and how it works in a historical sense.
Geologists – with the obvious exception of government ones, where there are continuing employment considerations – are the most sceptical group on the planet. I am a geologist and I know of no geologist who believes in alarmist CAGW theory.
_________________________________
Try Donald R. Prothero, who wrote the below referenced article “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused,” in Skeptic magazine. Subsequent articles by other published in Skeptic have suggested holding deniers legally accountable.
Protehro seems to be actively involved in the Skeptic society that founded by Michael Shermer who has done much to combat irrational thinking and popular delusions. Unfortunately, on the matter of CAGW, the high priests of skepticism, inexplicably, seem to have abandoned their principles:
“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. . . .Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.”
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/
Absolutely, justthefact…! And conclusions can change when more data becomes available. Science also depends on observation and experiment to support analysis. Humans for centuries even over our time on this planet, know for sure, observation was something they depended on, before they had meteorologists. I check the radar each day, and thunderstorm or cyclone warnings on BOM. While it is pouring with rain in an area close to me, we have little. But better be warned than not.
Our farmers in Australia know something about cloud formation dictating the likelihood of rain.
No fluffy things in the sky, the likelihood of rain is nil. (Simplistic I know). But there are things called rain shadows, and the earliest farmers who were not in rain shadows, grew richer than those that were. The difference between modern humans and nomadic humans, we can’t move away from our settlements to avoid severe weather events.
Pop, writing essays at my university, they didn’t like students putting and/or in essays when tackling the same problem. It demonstrates they don’t know precisely its a loophole. I do think this type of argument is petty.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Perpetual strawman, those were not my words.
Call it what you want, but they are still you words verbatim.
That was a distorted out of context presentation of them.
How exactly has excerpting you words distorted them. Are you saying that you did not mean to imply that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”, when you wrote that he “misrepresents his credentials”?
It is was not an inaccurate statement but a completely valid one based on the evidence I provided. That was not a single case but multiple misrepresentations in major newspapers that he was all aware of. Do you wish me to find more?
Yes, you have not presented any evidence that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”. Go find some or correct your article.
Willis fanboys never learn.
I am not defending Willis, I am defending every scientist who you besmirch because they have chosen to pursue a non-scientific focused education and profession.
Then present my statements in their proper context.
So now all sentences must be presented in full? I presented your statement in full here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/what-defines-a-scientist/#comment-1607053
anyone who is reading this thread has likely already read that comment. We have new moved on to an excerpt such that we can focus on a portion of what you’ve written. Get over it.
Strawman, that is not my argument, this is you defending your lack of credentials. People can learn in many ways, none of which makes them a scientist.
You didn’t present an “argument” you presented a question, and an inane one at that, i.e.; “How does it feel to live in fantasy land?”
ROFLMAO! So anyone who applies the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms is now a scientist!!!
We seem to have hit an impasse here, did you read the definition of scientific method? What does the subject matter of the research have to do with it’s categorization as science?
Should people list this on their resume?
I bet if you’d gotten 876,802 views in the last 12 months, you’d put that on your resume. (I’d provide his total views on WUWT, but apparently WUWT has broken the WordPress counter, because when you click “All time” the clock just spins forever.)
Nothing like following the idiocy road.
Yes, you seem to know it well…
To further demonstrate how much of this article is amateur hour.
“Google Dictionary” does not exist anymore (discontinued 2011) but it was never a separate dictionary to begin with. Rather it simply used definitions from Oxford which is why those two for “scientist” are identical. This is now integrated in Google Search using the search operator “define :”
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/amateur
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aamateur
Claiming the Google result is a unique definition or there is a “Google Dictionary” is laughable. Between that, the misinformation on Einstein and citing Wikipedia, this is one of the worst researched articles on WUWT.
Nik says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:21 am
We are dealing with mass hysteria here.
==================
correct.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Shall he use this on his resume under the title “Climate Scientist”?
Climate Scientist has to be one of the least respected and least meaningful titles in history, even Kenji would likely turn it down if offered:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
Also please learn to do real research and cite valid sources not Wikipedia which can be edited by a 5 year old.
We are still waiting for your bestow upon us your wisdom on how to do “real” and “proper” research. Can you cite the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia definition that have been inserted by these 5 year-olds? Can you offer an alternative definition of the scientific method, that supports you assertion that it requires a science degree and job in order to undertake?
The Wikipedia definition is the best. The references to ” physical and natural” sciences is a veiled inference that mathematics is the preferred language, even though that particular language, while precise, quickly runs into limitations in the “we don’t know squat ” realities we face.
Science is a process. You absorb all the data you possibly can. You wait for an inspiration and formulate a hypothesis. You strive for hypotheses that can be validated or falsified by existing data. Sometimes that is possible, other times not
.
Einstein’s streetcars were not mathematics, they were metaphor.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 9:33 pm
“Google Dictionary” does not exist anymore (discontinued 2011) but it was never a separate dictionary to begin with. Rather it simply used definitions from Oxford which is why those two for “scientist” are identical. This is now integrated in Google Search using the search operator “define :”
It is still the definition offered by the most used search engine and most viewed website in the world.
Claiming the Google result is a unique definition or there is a “Google Dictionary” is laughable.
You’re the one who is “Claiming the Google result is a unique definition”, I put them next to each other in the article so that it would be apparent to readers that they were the same. The point is that Webster’s definition is an outlier.
Between that, the misinformation on Einstein and citing Wikipedia, this is one of the worst researched articles on WUWT.
I refuted your point about Einstein, and am awaiting your detailed research on the 5 year old’s mistakes on Wikipedia…
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 8:54 pm
People can learn in many ways, none of which makes them a scientist.
================
You sir are a troll and do not warrant further reply. Your argument is nonsense. Recall the Wizard of Oz, when he granted the strawman brains, he granted him nothing more than a diploma.
Letters after ones name signifies learning. It does not signify wisdom. Universities are full of learned professors that call themselves scientists. And they live in Universities because the world of business would not have them.
These folks are not scientists, they are university professors. PhDs’ are Doctors of Philosophy. They are not scientists. They are Philosophers.
Presenting my words verbatim and then presenting a distorted argument in relation to them is a strawman.
Are you illiterate or do you just not understand context? I alleged that he may have. This is a completely valid argument in the proper context and with the evidence provided.
Strawman, I never claimed he did.
Why would you defend con artists? Or are you just defending the insane who think applying the scientific method to opening up M&Ms makes them a scientist?
There you did but you distorted the context by acting as if there was only one choice. No one intellectually honest will support the argument that he did not allow his credentials to be misrepresented. If you think I am going to ever get over someone lying about what I said, you don’t know me very well.
Yes I asked a question – your response was still a strawman. I take it you never applied for a job or was it only entry level?
I am well aware of the scientific method but I don’t take things posted off Wikipedia seriously. Only those who do not know how to do proper research do.
You really don’t know who I am, this is entertaining. I have sites that grossed $100,000… (nope shouldn’t say anymore).
Anyway, under “Climate Scientist” should he list web hits as his credentials? ROFLMAO!
This is an epic discussion.
And yes I am a scientist. I apply the scientific method to public transportation, and in the process have saved millions of dollars each year for the city in which I live.
What climate scientists has generated a single dime in profit for the public good from their efforts? For sure many have lined their own pockets, and the talk about benefits in the future, but which among them have generated any profit for the public today?
Because in the end isn’t this the true measure? If I’m applying the scientific method to generate millions for my city, while so called “scientists” (professors) only cost money and show no profit whatsoever except for promises and hand outs from governments and alumni, who is the real scientists?
Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:58 pm
You really don’t know who I am, this is entertaining. I have sites that grossed $100,000… (nope shouldn’t say anymore).
=====================
you are al gore in drag?
I will give you a hint, never reference Wikipedia. You are obviously massively computer illiterate and have no idea how Wikipedia works. There is no way to verify ANYTHING about someone who edits a Wikipedia page outside of an IP address recorded. Anytime you load a page, the contents can be different.
Talk about a strawman, I made no such assertion. Are you really this bad at debating someone’s actual argument that you have to perpetually distort it?
This is not an argument for your incompetence.
Sure you did genius. So the correct definition is the consensus? ROFLMAO!
No you didn’t. Please stop embarrassing yourself further. Do you REALLY want an education on how Wikipedia works? This will not end well for you, I promise.
Good to see more fanboys show up. Here we have one apparently on drugs of some sort.
Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 10:07 pm
justthefactswuwt says: April 6, 2014 at 9:39 pm
===============
This reads like two kids squabbling really. come one guys. propose a solution. the Arabs and the Israelis have already proven we cannot fix the past. Lets work on the present and the future will take care of itself.
Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:58 pm
> This is an epic discussion.
No, it’s an annoying waste of time.