[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

We are now in Global Cooling.

RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming

That was hilarious, thanks. The punch line:
"Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that."

Runners up:
"This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground." ???

"The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true."

But what's not too simple to be true? Let's find out:

"Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth."

Sounds very technical. Tell me more...

[besson3c]

It's astonishing how Buckaroo's lacking justification is following his decision already made and he is trying so desperately to find something that says what he wants to hear. Usually opinions follow justification and research, but I guess Buckaroo didn't get that memo.

The other astonishing thing is how unabashed he is in sharing his quest for justification with us in a public place

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't know, I guess I'm not as interested in psychoanalyzing Buckaroo as you are. I find the articles more entertaining than the messenger.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

We are now in Global Cooling.

RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming

Next year it'll be Global Stagnation. It's all a scam to get more money out of you the victim and lemming.

Buckaroo, can you truly not see that you have gone completely insane? Quoting stories from the Russian News and Information Agency? That say things like, "Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth"?

I hope you and ebuddy are right. But your arguments are just astoundingly bad.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't know, I guess I'm not as interested in psychoanalyzing Buckaroo as you are. I find the articles more entertaining than the messenger.

Yeah, I should stop. I suppose I'm starting to sound like Kevin. It's just really bizarre, but perhaps some things are best not understood!

I do wonder how long it will be before Buckaroo calls us all wackos though

[besson3c]

It would be really interesting if global warming was a big conspiracy or scam or something, and hell knows that I always love taking a position contrary to conventional wisdom, but I just can't here... It just seems too far-fetched that scientists from all over the world that are not funded by energy companies are all agreeing on this in some big coordinated global conspiracy where the shifty scientists try to fool us for no apparent reason!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Group-think doesn't need a reason. It's like a blind watchmaker.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I hope you and ebuddy are right. But your arguments are just astoundingly bad.

You natural climate change deniers are all the same. All poopy-butt stink faces.

[Buckaroo]

They are Lemmings.

[besson3c]

Hehe... he can't make a good case which accounts for why we are, he just feels it in his gut, damnit!

[peeb]

But if you look closely at the Apollo footage, you can see a sound boom in some of the shots!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

They are Lemmings.

That's what the mule said.

I've always wanted to be a kangaroo. They seem happy. What animal are you?

[Chongo]

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe

And yet...the first six months of 2007 were the second-hottest on record. I haven't seen the results for the full year yet, but in a shocking turn of events your article doesn't mention "numbers", choosing to completely ignore the concepts of "climate change" and "extreme weather" and instead cherry-pick individual weather events.

greg

[besson3c]

Don't worry Greg, the random article he posts tomorrow will, just you wait!

Perhaps he has a "Google random article that supports my already formed opinion" tickler in his iCal?

[osiris]

Forecast for NYC:
New York Weather Forecasts on Yahoo! Weather

High: 60°Low: 49°
High: 65°Low: 53°
High: 60°Low: 37°
High: 46°Low: 40°

Forecast for Los Angeles:
Los Angeles Weather Forecasts on Yahoo! Weather
High: 61°Low: 46°
High: 61°Low: 47°
High: 63°Low: 48°
High: 68°Low: 50°

I still prefer to call it "Global Climate Change" versus "Global Warming". Every ten years or so the term changes anyway, and at least 'Change' is non-specific to the direction of change, because someday it will get very cold again. Then warm. Then cold, etc..

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And yet...the first six months of 2007 were the second-hottest on record. I haven't seen the results for the full year yet, but in a shocking turn of events your article doesn't mention "numbers", choosing to completely ignore the concepts of "climate change" and "extreme weather" and instead cherry-pick individual weather events.

greg

to paraphrase Archie Bunker
It's in the Boston Globe(Nat. Enquirerer), owned by the "newspaper of record" The NY Times, so it must be true.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You natural climate change deniers are all the same. All poopy-butt stink faces.

Keep smoking those cigarettes, ebuddy. A few pages back I said that 99% of the people denying global warming also deny evolution, think the world is 300 years old and flat, etc. I'd forgotten to mention that they don't think smoking is linked to cancer. Sorry, but there are some positions that are so ridiculous that I don't want to bother arguing against them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Tie, your personal vendetta is getting pretty tired. Maybe you can carry out the rest of it in private.

[peeb]

He is actually just responding, relatively reasonably, to constant nonsensical baiting by ebuddy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

ebuddy's comment was sarcastic. He meant that name-calling and simply stating "I'm right but you're wrong" is not productive. You may not have noticed, but he's been using "poop butt stink face" to try to make that point for a long time; it's like a school-yard reference. It's a valid point, even if it's not the best presentation of that point.

tie's point is not valid. He's trying to say you can pigeon-hole anyone who speaks out against global warming as moon-landing deniers, tobacco-cancer link deniers, young-earth creationists and flat earthers. To top it off, it seems he bases this on putting words in ebuddy's mouth that he didn't say and then constantly hounding him about it in other threads. It's not civil and it's not a valid argument.

[tie]

Uncle Skeleton, ebuddy made that point himself and has yet to retract it. If he retracts it, then I'll be fine with him. But if ebuddy is unwilling to acknowledge that a source who claims that smoking is not linked with cancer isn't credible, then ebuddy himself lacks credibility.

Is it rude to continue to point it out, again and again? Maybe. On the other hand, I think this thread would be stronger if Chongo and Buckaroo were similarly forced to defend the incorrect posts they made fifteen pages ago instead of replying to every new incorrect post they make.

[peeb]

It's true. The impunity that ebuddy and others have for simply posting nonsense, and never being held accountable for it makes debate very difficult.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Responding to inferior posts at the time should be enough of a rebuttal. If you feel it necessary to hound members from thread to thread and put words in their mouth, it should be a clue that your case isn't as strong as you think it is. Also, if you think less of them because of their inferior posts, take a second to step back and look at what damage yours are doing to your own credibility.

Ebuddy didn't claim cigarettes cause cancer any more than you have claimed you invented the internet (by at one point citing Al Gore). Give it a rest.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's true. The impunity that ebuddy and others have for simply posting nonsense, and never being held accountable for it makes debate very difficult.

What are you talking about? ebuddy has done more to back up his "nonsense" in this thread than you have. Maybe you should account for this accusation with some legwork...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Responding to inferior posts at the time should be enough of a rebuttal. If you feel it necessary to hound members from thread to thread and put words in their mouth, it should be a clue that your case isn't as strong as you think it is. Also, if you think less of them because of their inferior posts, take a second to step back and look at what damage yours are doing to your own credibility.

Ebuddy didn't claim cigarettes cause cancer any more than you have claimed you invented the internet (by at one point citing Al Gore). Give it a rest.

No, you misunderstand. Ebuddy is quoting people who deny that cigarettes cause cancer. He needs to be hounded until he takes responsibility for the nonsense he is posting.

[Uncle Skeleton]

No. Hounding is not a valid debate tactic. If his source is as ridiculous as you claim, simply saying so once, at the time, is good enough.

Otherwise, I would still be hounding you for your inaccurate knee-jerk comment lumping him in with the post-and-run crowd that keeps bumping this thread.

[peeb]

No, people need to be held accountable for constantly posting nonsense and then not responding to rebuttals.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Whatever you say, guy. Does that mean you're going to apologize for lumping ebuddy in with Buckaroo and Chongo and the folks who "don't respond to rebuttals?" Yeah, thought not. Hypocrite.

Edit: I've said my piece on this meta-discussion. You can have the last word if it gives you comfort.

[peeb]

Erm, perhaps you are mistaken again - where did I say that Chongo and Buckaroo "don't respond to rebuttals"? Perhaps you should get your facts straight before slinging abuse.
Don't worry though - I don't expect you to respond to the fact I have pointed out that your accusation is groundless, less still apologize or retract it. This is exactly the behavior I am complaining about.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, you misunderstand. Ebuddy is quoting people who deny that cigarettes cause cancer. He needs to be hounded until he takes responsibility for the nonsense he is posting.

This is not a discussion on pathology. This is a discussion on climate science. At no time did I quote anyone that did not have credentials related specifically to climate science.

Is the fact that Al Gore claims to have been sung the "look for the union label" lullaby as a child knowing that Gore was 27 when the song came out a problem for his case on global warming?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Keep smoking those cigarettes, ebuddy. A few pages back I said that 99% of the people denying global warming also deny evolution, think the world is 300 years old and flat, etc. I'd forgotten to mention that they don't think smoking is linked to cancer. Sorry, but there are some positions that are so ridiculous that I don't want to bother arguing against them.

You don't want to bother arguing against the strawmen you put up? So far you're insisting on arguing against "global warming deniers". The globe warms and the globe cools. I suspect anyone who denies this has more problems than supposing the earth is flat and only a few hundred years old. Using your logic... you're a natural climate change denier. See how this works? I wouldn't want to argue against a natural climate change denier either. Absolute cop out.

Notwithstanding the fact that you have absolutely no information to affirm that 99% of the people challenging global warming hype are flat/young earthers who deny the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Come to think of it, you really haven't provided any information at all.

This display is useful to anyone needing an example of ill-informed hype run amuck. BTW, have you decided what you want from "global warming deniers" yet?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, people need to be held accountable for constantly posting nonsense and then not responding to rebuttals.

I'm game... what rebuttal should I respond to?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Erm, perhaps you are mistaken again - where did I say that Chongo and Buckaroo "don't respond to rebuttals"? Perhaps you should get your facts straight before slinging abuse.

Originally Posted by peeb

The impunity that ebuddy and others have for simply posting nonsense, and never being held accountable for it makes debate very difficult.

Originally Posted by peeb

No, people need to be held accountable for constantly posting nonsense and then not responding to rebuttals.

- Please clarify who the "others" are in your first example above.

- Please clarify what "held accountable" means in your first example above.

- Please clarify who the "people" are in your second example.

Thanks.
Of course we know you won't respond at all. You have a long history of not responding to posts that challenge you intellectually. You are in fact a hypocrite as Uncle Skeleton indicated.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I still prefer to call it "Global Climate Change" versus "Global Warming". Every ten years or so the term changes anyway, and at least 'Change' is non-specific to the direction of change, because someday it will get very cold again. Then warm. Then cold, etc..

I think Global Climate Acceleration is a better term.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Uncle Skeleton, ebuddy made that point himself and has yet to retract it. If he retracts it, then I'll be fine with him. But if ebuddy is unwilling to acknowledge that a source who claims that smoking is not linked with cancer isn't credible, then ebuddy himself lacks credibility.

I have absolutely no problem admitting that what's-his-face has zero credibility on pathology. In fact, I'm not even interested enough in the report this climate scientist compiled to purchase it, though I'll admit that the peer-review from the hundreds of climate scientists contained within it is compelling. Which was my point in the first place.

I've already cited well-known and quite blatent lies by Al Gore. Does this mean there is absolutely nothing of value in his documentary on global climate?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And yet...the first six months of 2007 were the second-hottest on record. I haven't seen the results for the full year yet, but in a shocking turn of events your article doesn't mention "numbers", choosing to completely ignore the concepts of "climate change" and "extreme weather" and instead cherry-pick individual weather events.

greg

Found this info in this blog post: NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010

Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Niño — La Niña cycle.

… barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.

December is not included, yet.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, people need to be held accountable for constantly posting nonsense and then not responding to rebuttals.

It seems that it's nonsense only when it contradicts someone's entrenched beliefs. If someone posts a link to data by scientists that were once in the MMGCC camp, then after a reassessment of the data, changed their opinions, they are suddenly heretics and can no longer to be trusted and/or are in the pocket of the oil companies.
Global Con-sensus

More nonsense on how the debate is not over
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Press Release

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It seems that it's nonsense only when it contradicts someone's entrenched beliefs. If someone posts a link to data by scientists that were once in the MMGCC camp, then after a reassessment of the data, changed their opinions, they are suddenly heretics and can no longer to be trusted and/or are in the pocket of the oil companies.
Global Con-sensus

So much use can be gained from cleverly edited texts. I doubt any of the scientitist quoted therein would doubt that the earth has been undergoing warming. Just because there has been cyclicity in the past (and will be in the future), doesn't negate the fact that humans have a big impact on the environment (releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels, destroying biomass which would remove CO2 from the atmosphere).

Again, like was said the last time this article was posted (a mere two weeks ago), the scientists aren't necessarily refuting that global warming is happening or that humans have a part in it, all their contentions are with the apocalyptic spin put on it by Mr. Gore, whose statements are in sharp contrast to the IPCC's in many regards.

The science is for all intents and purposes settled. The policy debate (and rhetoric) will live on.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

More nonsense on how the debate is not over

Heh. I rest my case.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It seems that it's nonsense only when it contradicts someone's entrenched beliefs.

Quoted For Hilarity™

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So much use can be gained from cleverly edited texts. I doubt any of the scientitist quoted therein would doubt that the earth has been undergoing warming. Just because there has been cyclicity in the past (and will be in the future), doesn't negate the fact that humans have a big impact on the environment (releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels, destroying biomass which would remove CO2 from the atmosphere). Again, like was said the last time this article was posted (a mere two weeks ago), the scientists aren't necessarily refuting that global warming is happening or that humans have a part in it, all their contentions are with the apocalyptic spin put on it by Mr. Gore, whose statements are in sharp contrast to the IPCC's in many regards.

The science is for all intents and purposes settled. The policy debate (and rhetoric) will live on.

Of course the debate and rhetoric will live on. It lives first among scientists and we'd want it no other way. One main problem I have is the fact that we're still framing this as "warming deniers" against "scientific consensus". I find only a select few on this board denying warming... and cooling. This is no more useful than suggesting those who oppose people arguing against AGW hype are "natural climate change deniers" or "global cooling deniers" then producing consensus arguments debunking those who refute that climate change is natural.

From the article;
Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output." Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Variables like... clouds among other things. Problem is, Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formula used to calculate their graphed trends, nor the corrections used to arrive at the "corrected" data from known inadequate sensor sites, you'll have to invoke FOI to get your hands on any statistical analysis. Why the concern? Controls. Controls like determining a model's accuracy for future predictions by accurately predicting the past. The accuracy of the models in the first place;

A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere. This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming. “The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”

The questions are very real. Does this mean "global warming debunked!!!" or even "man-made global warming debunked!!!"??? Absolutely not, but again the questions are extremely valid and very real. This is what science is working on. To say that "The science is for all intents and purposes settled" is to parrot the talking point of one whom you admit has problems with credibility. The millions in research grants to study temperature anomalies and the numerous articles continuously reminding us of "new evidence of AGW" are not consistent with this being an "open and shut case".

Worse, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that any change in man's fossil fuel use will have any appreciable affect on global climate at all. On to page 40...

[tie]

As climate change becomes a sexier topic, you get more and more people from the outskirts coming in and suddenly claiming to be experts. Or, perhaps they are guiltless and it is just the media calling them experts. Regardless, knowing that someone is a "physicist ... who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" does not give me any reason to pay attention to them.

Similarly, your scientist who claims cancer and smoking aren't linked. You continue to defend him, to what end? Gore isn't a scientist and doesn't claim to be a scientist. Several people in this thread have confused him as a scientist, but I don't think you are doing so. The comparison doesn't make sense.

"Worse, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that any change in man's fossil fuel use will have any appreciable affect on global climate at all."

This isn't accurate. On the other hand, it is true that we need a better understanding of our choices, their costs and benefits.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Regardless, knowing that someone is a "physicist ... who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" does not give me any reason to pay attention to them.

So... physicists and engineers have no place in global climate data? So much for the GISS and GCM models.

Similarly, your scientist who claims cancer and smoking aren't linked.

Not similarly at all.

You continue to defend him, to what end?

I haven't defended him. I've actually been quite indifferent to him. I've only cited his credentials in the field relevent to this discussion.

Gore isn't a scientist and doesn't claim to be a scientist. Several people in this thread have confused him as a scientist, but I don't think you are doing so. The comparison doesn't make sense.

Right and because Gore is not a scientist there is absolutely nothing of value in his compilation of data on global climate. Got it.

"Worse, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that any change in man's fossil fuel use will have any appreciable affect on global climate at all."

This isn't accurate. On the other hand, it is true that we need a better understanding of our choices, their costs and benefits.

It is indeed accurate, but I agree that we need a better understanding of our choices, their costs, and benefits.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... physicists and engineers have no place in global climate data? So much for the GISS and GCM models.

I think my point was probably clear, but I'll repeat it. Merely saying so-and-so is a physicist and engineer does not give him any credibility as a climate scientist. Being an engineer has absolutely no relevance. Being a trained physicist may or may not be relevant, depending on what area he studies, assuming he still does research. Because he is being quoted about the climate, one might immediately assume that he studies the climate, but I wouldn't jump to that assumption. There are certainly lots of scientists who have been quoted, or signed their names to letters, on the other side of the debate who are not climate scientists.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think my point was probably clear, but I'll repeat it. Merely saying so-and-so is a physicist and engineer does not give him any credibility as a climate scientist. Being an engineer has absolutely no relevance. Being a trained physicist may or may not be relevant, depending on what area he studies, assuming he still does research. Because he is being quoted about the climate, one might immediately assume that he studies the climate, but I wouldn't jump to that assumption. There are certainly lots of scientists who have been quoted, or signed their names to letters, on the other side of the debate who are not climate scientists.

It certainly gives him credit enough to study the mechanics of global warming, since they are, after all, based on physics.

Is he qualified to say what affects will be wrought upon the environment, society, and nature's ecosystems? No, but a physicist is certainly qualified to discuss the physics of the atmosphere.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It certainly gives him credit enough to study the mechanics of global warming, since they are, after all, based on physics.

No, uh-uh, not gonna work. If you could float that then you could say physicists trump all experts in anything, because all matter is based on physics. Physicists are experts in love-making because humans are just made of molecules that behave according to the laws of physics. See, doesn't fit.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, uh-uh, not gonna work. If you could float that then you could say physicists trump all experts in anything, because all matter is based on physics. Physicists are experts in love-making because humans are just made of molecules that behave according to the laws of physics. See, doesn't fit.

I understand your problem with the basic statement because of course saying "physicist" is not enough, but what happens in this is a pissing match of credentials. Credentials we'll either down-play or overlook altogether when their conclusions counter our biased presuppositions. This has perhaps been the most tiresome aspect of this debate. The evidence I've cited includes climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, etc with extensive work in the field of climate science. Not unlike the sources cited by others such as Judith Lean from the 2007 Hottest Year on Record article; a physicist. One of the main contributing scientists for "Real Climate" often cited in these debates is Gavin Schmidt with PhD in applied mathematics. Dr. Michael E. Mann is another contributing member of "Real Climate" holds undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. In fact, after perusing the scientists that contribute the most to climate change science through NOAA and NASA, the majority of them physicists. Most of the scientists used in the IPCC are simply labeled "experts", but what are their specific credentials? It is not their degree that is most important, but their work in the field.

Any of the models used for the study of climate change are likely designed by engineers with the help of physicists and any possible solutions to these "problems" would obviously include physicists and engineers. In short, I would say a physicist who designed instrumentation for atmospheric climate data is qualified to speak on problems with modeling and data collection. Much of this "I wouldn't pay attention to this one or that one" is simply intellectual laziness and a cover for being ill-informed which I'm sure you'd agree also doesn't work. That has however been the lion's share of this debate unfortunately and I've appreciated you speaking out against it.

[Snow-i]

thats a horrible analogy, but if anything strengthens my argument.

Lovemaking and the causes behind it are based at least in part on a soft-science....psychology...not so with climatology. A physicist could likely explain the "physics" of whats going on...uhh...inside... but wouldn't be able to tell you anything other than that....ie, the psychogical reasoning behind it, who's likely to boink who, etc etc.

Similiarly, a physicist would be qualified to explain the physics behind the earth's warming, whether it be from increased levels of CO2 and other GHG's trapping more low-frequency radiation or from an increase in solar radiation altogether. Perhaps less qualified to predict trends, a physicist is more then qualified to explain the physics of the earth's energy retention and radiation and why the equilibrium between those two is falling out of balance.

A climatologist is nothing more then a scientist studying the physics of the earth and its climate patterns, albeit on a huge scale with hundreds of still yet unknown/incalculable variables. Its all based on the physics of the interactions between the components of the earth and its atmosphere.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Much of this "I wouldn't pay attention to this one or that one" is simply intellectual laziness and a cover for being ill-informed

Yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that what qualifies an expert to be an expert is not the label on their degree, but just the body of work they've published on that topic. Unrelated disqualifications aside of course.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A climatologist is nothing more then a scientist studying the physics of the earth and its climate patterns, albeit on a huge scale

And here's the source of your misconception. Scale is everything. If you understand the basics of arithmetic, scaling it up to calculus doesn't do you a whole lot of good. It's the same in science, and this is what I was trying to say. It's technically accurate to say that all sciences are just a specialization of physics. Chemistry is just physics ignoring things that aren't molecules. Biology is just chemistry ignoring things that aren't alive. Psychology is just biology ignoring things that aren't thinking. Economics is just psychology ignoring things that don't have money. The problem is that while it is correct, and you could theoretically model any sized system at the atomic level, that won't do you any good unless you spend decades studying that particular "specialization of physics." Because there's just too much to know, you can't understand it just by looking at the atomic level.

A climatologist (or a biologist or a chemist or a physician) is not "nothing more" than a physicist. The intricacies of a specific system come with more specific information to understand them, not less.

[peeb]

Bravo. Well put.