Can someone help me understand this

[WVPATX]

Four scientists produced a peer reviewed climate model that calls into question the models used by the IPCC in predicting global warming. The scientists prove that the current models are all running "hot." The scientists were not paid to produce this model. Yet, many are trying to destroy these scientists. Why? I thought that science was all about skepticism, questioning, proving theories wrong, etc. Shouldn't the naysayers try and prove the models incorrect rather than trying to destroy or harm the scientists involved?

Link

 

[countryroads89]

You realize that the oil companies paid scientists to claim there were no harmful effects from lead when they used lead additives in gasoline?

 

[WVPATX]

These scientists were not paid. And even if they were, isn't it real science to prove the conclusions wrong rather than attacking the scientists? Regardless of who funds a scientist, the aim should be to disprove their theories.

Moreover, if global warming is settled science, shouldn't this study be easily dismissed based on science?
This post was edited on 2/24 2:09 PM by WVPATX

 

[moe]

Doomed! The article writer, who is one of the study's authors, is whining. You're whining about him whining. Sounds like they've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide so they are not at risk of being "destroyed" or even harmed in any small way. You posted this the other day, maybe get some new material about the topic that you would love to talk about 24/7.

 

[WVPATX]

I posted about this last week, but the question in this post is completely different. If global warming is settled, why not just destroy this study with scientific evidence? Why not dispute the conclusions with proven facts? Instead of doing either, many are simply attacking the authors of the study. I'm just asking why that is the case?

 

[moe]

Who says someone isn't working to destroy the study with scientific evidence? The author is just complaining that he/they are being picked on in other ways. Just because some scientists and politicians say that the science is settled, you must not accept this but a sports message board is probably not the best place to get your message out. Make your voice heard! (elsewhere) Write your congressman, carry a picket sign in front of some federal building, it's time for action.

 

[WVPATX]

Wrong once again. You make a habit of that. This is not a sports message board. This is an Off-Topic Discussion Board. Sounds like you agree with me that the science is not settled.

 

[countryroads89]

Let me ask again. What do you do for a living? It's obviously nothing related to science.

 

[moe]

lol feel better now. I was wondering why these threads weren't getting moved, wow.

 

[WVPATX]

How is it unscientific to suggest to warmists that science and facts should be used, if possible, to rebut the work of these four scientists? There's an old legal adage, "When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, pound the table." The warmists are pounding the table.

 

[moe]

No, they've got nothing lol.

 

[WVPATX]

Please link to their proof that this research is wrong. Can't wait to read it.

 

[moe]

Speaking in general terms, no interest in helping you beat that horse.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

To answer your question

No.
Nobody can help you understand this. Furthermore, you have no willingness to understand anything that doesn't support your politically driven position.

FWIW, I initially thought all of the AGW stuff was bunk. But to use your analogy, I studied the facts and evidence instead of pounding the table.

You must have broken both hands by now.