Climate Change

[RiotInferno]

That being said, one can assume that meteorology wasn't an actual degree back when he was in school and/or he picked up quite a bit of knowledge on the job.

Now, the question of meteorology = hard science, that's a whole 'nother question.

If, by "meteorologist," you mean "scientist working in the field of weather," then sure.

But he isn't a meteorologist in that sense. He's the weather guy on the local news. This is what he does: standing in front of a green screen, grinning like a game show host, and showing you whether it will be sunny or rainy tomorrow. Necessary though it may be, that's not science, and there's nothing about that job that teaches you anything relevant about climatology.

In the end, I don't feel like we have enough data points to come up with a conclusive model, and anyone (scientifically) who tries to go against the grain is a pariah and ruined academically.

Really? For those critics who are actually in the field of climate science, they don't seem to be suffering too terribly. Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT. (I'd kill for a named chair at MIT, and if that's what being a pariah is, then sign me up!) Judith Curry is a chair at the Georgia Institute of Technolology. Most other critics are from other fields (notably geology and astrophysics), but seem to be doing just fine.

It's not exactly a popular view, and no doubt their views will come under sharp criticism for their peers. (Not unlike, say, a Marxist in an economics department, or a steady-state universe proponent in astronomy.) But there's a long way between that and being a "pariah," or being "ruined."

-Jester

Jester,
I'd just like to say thank you for making your points in a manner that doesn't make me feel like a complete idiot. This is one reason why I like this board.

I have been thoroughly enlightened by this. Now if only our Media and Politicians would be as thorough as you. GG.