As I pointed out, there is no possibility of that causing a consistent analysis of a problem this complex that is being studied around the world.
I have only used the snowblower once this year, i want snow, back when I had to shovel it snowed all the time, I think it's just cause I bought a snowblower
You didn't answer the simple question. Why does your ability to run a mass spectrometer give you any expertise in climate science? And that certainly seems justified, even more so now. So, again, you're a technician who can operate a mass spectrometer. Congratulations. That doesn't make you a scientist. Scientists generally have a Ph.D. and postdoc work in one of the hard sciences. Can you tell us what subject your Pd.D was in, your dissertation topic, and what your postdoc work consisted of? Any actual scientist could. We're not talking about my claims, being I haven't made any claims about being a scientist. I'm just the guy pointing out your claims are false. Let's lay it out. You claim to know climate science is a fraud. You provide zero evidence for that. You say you know it due to your experience as a scientist. I ask exactly what that experience was. You hem and haw and won't say. Conclusion: You're not a scientist. And being you base your claim that climate science is a fraud on being a scientist, your claim that climate science is fraudulent also fails. I may not be a scientist, but I am very good at logic.
I don't see it as an issue of business. Business would have to try to do something. And, that something would require a scientific effort on the scale of just going ahead and solving the problem. For example, those proposing and administering grans around the world did not know what high atmosphere or deep ocean temperatures would need to be recorded in order to support or kill any theory on climate. They didn't know what the gas in deep ice core samples would have to be to be consistent with anything else. The problem is, business would have to be informed. And, the information you desire was available only AFTER the science was done.
sure lets discuss science using your logic. Do you agree climate measurements should be taken accurately and precisely?
There's nothing as good as combustion except maybe meat. That's why man learned to control fire (except in some forests) and to hunt.
I pointed out how that is irrelevant. I know it is a business. What YOU don't get is that arbitrarily wrong results isn't enough to support your claims.
We do not know what business you are in, but we do know that you have the capacity to offer evidence. I am a little suspicious of any scientist who does not like being challenged for proof and data, or any that suggests that only 'qualified persons' get to challenge for evidence. I thought people got to challenge and people ought to challenge. . . Any scientist worth their salt would respect the request . They would not respect someone who did not demand more than an anonymous internet claim of expertise.
mmmm wrong? no. wrong relative. Here ill demonstrate..what is the corrcect temperature in your area at this moment?
ok mouth....lets put your science to the test. Give me the instrument logs, calibration records and training records associated with your first measurement. Lets see if your full if it or if I am. Bet you wont. Youll stutter stammer throw more insults but you wont supply me with the information. If you cant your data is what we call qualitative NOT quantitative. Do you know what that means your data is?
I challenge data for a living. Literally. Give me the calibration records, instrument logs and training records of your first measurement in your referenced study. Lets challenge the data together. mmmkay? So far not one leftist has ever met this remedial request.
Don't remember my first measurement but several times a year had to send outside mikes, inside mikes, depth mikes, Vernier calipers, etc., to the PMEL lab for verification of accuracy. Shops had loaner sets, also PMEL certified, for when your own precision measuring tools went to the lab. I wasn't a scientist, but for sure didn't want the shame of having a red-tagged chunk of metal in front of my work station for several days and the boss shake his head every time he walked by, and that brought up again on my next evaluation.
Again, this isn't about me, as I didn't make any claims about being a scientist. You did. And now, in front of everyone, over and over, you're very loudly refusing to support those claims. When you can tell us about your Ph.D field of study, your dissertation topic, and your postdoc work, then you'll have credibility as a scientist. You don't do that. You talk about technician topics, meaning you're a technician. And that's great. Just don't pretend to be a scientist.
lol mmmkay.....its your scientific claim not mine. I asked for remedial...as in basic supporting documentation that every scientific study has or it isnt valid. Do you have it or not? Also...says scientist on my company card. Ill let them know internet guy thinks scientists dont work with mass fragments.
so you cant back up your mouth just personal insults right? Your data doesnt even pass remedial checks. Also, sorry I dont punctuate on my cell phone. I assume those reading are smart enough to figure it out. Like I said when you are ready to leave beta male world and defend your data against remedial checks...let me know...mmkay? Now run along internet scientist and try to find a scientific data recording class for beginners. If this were a real audit you would have failed and paid a tidy sum for the audit preparation, room and board only to need to redo it all over again when the data is actually ready to be audited. So either use your internet science guy experience and post it or scurry away. Whats the matter, your science full of holes at step 1?
No Im not. Im asking you to back up your claim. You made it personal. Go back and read it for yourself. Dont blame me because your science sucks. Didnt even pass remedial muster. You cant even show the people collecting hour data points were trained, nor were your instruments calibrated. If you cant do that wait until we get into spatial analysis.
