To: combjelly who wrote (897757 ) 11/1/2015 2:20:59 PM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574326 >> I use it to describe those who think skimming a site that is anti-science makes them an expert in the field. I have never claimed to be an expert in climate science. But neither do I believe that climate science is a real science. The real science comes from fields of paleoclimatology, dendrochronology, statistics, geology and basic physics and chemistry. If a climate scientist is an expert in these fields, fine. There aren't many. But in reality, you can't call yourself a "scientist" if your study isn't consistent with the Scientific Method. You just can't. Yet, practically every Warmist who can legitimately claim to be a scientist has bought into the belief in some way or the other. For example, while EVERY NOAA scientist may believe in global warming, there is some reason they're refusing to release the data. One has to take that into consideration. There is also some reason that so-called peer-reviewed journals are supporting NOAA in hiding the data. >> You exhibit this when it comes to climate change and some other areas like economics. I don't have a great background in economics, other than the obligatory coursework for an accounting degree and an MBA, which is probably about 12-15 hours (excluding Econometrics, which is more of a statistics course). But most of what I understand I got from my dad, growing up in and around his businesses, and understanding what makes business work. Understanding that when you raise prices demand goes down. Period. Understanding that when you cut prices, sales go up. That kind of knowledge is what you never got. Understanding that it is act of PRODUCING, not CONSUMING, that causes economic growth. These are the microeconomic tie-ins to macroeconomics that your focus on the indeterminate takes you past without allowing you to absorb even an iota of information.