Hello Nick!

18 Jan 20 15:52, Nick Andre wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

 GK>> So I ask you for the third time: what is your scientific 
 GK>> qualification?

 NA> Qualified enough to spot your inherent comprehension problem.

You failed thrice with this simple question now. I somehow expected that.

 NA> You can 
 NA> have
 NA> a degree in something but that does not necessarily mean you know 
 NA> everything
 NA> on the subject. That is an authoritarian response to assume that a 
 NA> degree
 NA> proves absolute knowledge or even qualification.

Go to your doctor and tell him about this. 

 NA> I have met people and have extended family-connection with those who 
 NA> are 
 NA> extremely high functioning with university degrees and 
 NA> "qualification" in your
 NA> view, but they cannot parallel-park their car or spot a Microsoft 
 NA> scam or
 NA> cook a meal to feed themselves if their life depended on it. They can 
 NA> score 
 NA> high on IQ testing but can fuck up a simple cup of coffee.

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
A couple of years ago I read an article about someone who claimed to have found
the solution for all energy problems we have. Some simple, cheap source of
energy that would solve all kinds of problems of mankind. Strangely, I never
heard of that guy again. He even had a degree, he was a physician.

Just change the sides in that story:
An engineer or physicist claims to have found a cure for all kinds of illnesses
other people failed to find over decades. Cure for cancer, HIV, SARS, all at
the same time. Cheap and easy. Would you believe that? Would you let someone
like that treat your illnesses? I wouldn't even buy the story if the claim came
from a physician. Not without a /detailed/ proof.

That's how science works: people making extraordinary claims need to proof
them. If your opinion contradicts 90+% of the scientists working on the field
worldwide, you'd better be prepared with some better answers than "persuation"
and "bought studies" conspiration theories. Otherwise you just proof yourself
to be a crackpot.

 NA> You assume that I must believe and recognize your definition of 
 NA> authority or
 NA> qualification. 

No. However, it would be nice to accept that there are people who know more
than you do.
You say you know better than people wordwide working professionally on the
subject. I'm laughing my ass off, why should anyone take /you/ serious? I get
crackpot mail often enough, from people who "proved" that "scientists all over
the world" have it "terribly wrong" in general relativity, nuclear fusion,
electrodynamics, free energy, the universerse as a whole, whatever.
I don't care. People claiming extraordinary things that are in contradiction to
the vast majority of the views of people who work professionally on the subject
have to give proof for their claims. Otherwise they're simply... crackpots.

 NA> That I must believe that a scientist can never be paid 
 NA> by
 NA> corporations or persuaded by politicians to do studies biased in 
 NA> their
 NA> favour. To believe without question that climate science is never 
 NA> wrong?

You can believe whatever you want. How likely do you think it is that 90+% of
the scientists in that field all over the world got bought or persuaded? Just
imagine, there are people outside the US and Canada working on this, people who
don't care at all about Al Gore or George Soros.
On the other side, how likely may it be that you don't want to accept a reality
that has uncomfortable consequences for you?

 NA> I then asked for your scientific qualification. You said, "Doesn't 
 NA> matter".

Indeed, it doesn't matter at all in this context, and I'm too old for having
fun in cock comparisons.
You came up with the extraordinary claims, so it's your turn to proof. The
scientific consensus is quite clear, and you can look it up in so many places,
I'll just give two examples here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 NA> Thats why you're being rediculed. I'm consistant with what I believe 
 NA> in, 
 NA> you're busy moving the football goal-posts to wherever your belief 
 NA> takes you.

I don't feel ridiculed at all. I said you were trying to ridicule people. Not
very successfully, but keep on trying, maybe you get somewhere one day.
Your believes don't matter to me at all in this context, believes belong into a
church of some kind.
BTW: football goal-posts are pretty much unmovable around here where I live...


Regards,
Gerrit

... 11:13PM  up 12 days,  8:15, 5 users, load averages: 0.28, 0.34, 0.35

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2