Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

Originally posted by humy
Perhaps you cannot read but, as I clearly said before, both of those things are correct and I never suggested in any way the contrary and both of those things are irrelevant to your claim. Those people, if they are qualified climate scientists, are both qualified in climatology and qualified in some other profession, such as meteorology or astrophysics, other ...[text shortened]... in computers to be a qualified computer expert? Your 'argument' is completely stupid. Try again.

"Those people, if they are qualified climate scientists, are both qualified in climatology and qualified in some other profession, such as meteorology or astrophysics, other than climatology. So you can't handle the word "both"?"

They are NOT both! They are NOT climatologists at all. Climate scientists do NOT have to be climatologists!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prove me wrong or SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LIAR!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain

They are NOT both! They are NOT climatologists at all. Climate scientists do NOT have to be climatologists!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then prove it by proving Wikipedia wrong by giving any example of just any one modern-day officially recognized qualified climate scientist that has no qualifications in climatology.

Prove me wrong or SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LIAR!!!!

My source of information is from wiki;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"...Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the study of climate,.."


The words "Climatology ... or climate science" in the above wiki link clearly and obviously logically implies that "climate science" equates with "climatology"; how else can that be interpreted? How else should we interpret the word "or" there?
Therefore, if wiki is right there, by definition, you cannot be qualified in climate science without being qualified in climatology. And, by definition, if you are qualified in climatology then you are a climatologist therefore, if wiki is right, logically, all qualified climate scientists are qualified climatologists by definition.

In contrast, out of the hundreds of related wiki links I have read, I have yet to ever see a single wiki link that indicates the contrary to that.

Now, either wiki is wrong and I am merely mistaken (thus not lying) for assuming wiki is right about this, and so far you have given me no evidence nor reason to think wiki is probably wrong about this, or I am right for assuming wiki is right about this and you are wrong. Either way, as you can surely clearly see from my above source of information, I am clearly not a liar.

Well?

Originally posted by humy
Then prove it by proving Wikipedia wrong by giving any example of just any one modern-day officially recognized qualified climate scientist that has no qualifications in climatology.

Prove me wrong or SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LIAR!!!!

My source of information is from wiki;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"...Climatology (from Gr ...[text shortened]... ou can surely clearly see from my above source of information, I am clearly not a liar.

Well?

You are a liar!

Many climate scientists listed on that wikipedia link are NOT climatologists at all. As I said many times before, either you are wrong or wikipedia is wrong. You insist they are right and you are too even though that is a clear contradiction.

You have failed. You know it too. You just cannot bear to admit yet another failure despite the obvious. I'm done with you.

Originally posted by Metal Brain


Many climate scientists listed on that wikipedia link are NOT climatologists at all. .

Then prove it or prove wiki wrong.

Originally posted by humy
Then prove it or prove wiki wrong.

You already failed to do that yourself. I don't need to prove wiki wrong. It supports everything I claimed, unlike your rhetoric.

All you had to do is prove that the many climate scientists listed on wiki without a degree in climatology in reality did have that degree. That would be very easy to do if that were true. Your failure to do so shows everyone on here you are wrong.

Not all climate scientists are climatologists. That is a fact. Failing to prove such a simple fact wrong is pathetic considering you keep making the false claim otherwise. It is as if you are trying to embarrass yourself. Notice kazetnagorra (the first to make your false claim) is avoiding the embarrassment himself because unlike you he has enough common sense to give up a futile argument.

FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
... I don't need to prove wiki wrong. It supports everything I claimed,

No, it clearly contradicts your claim because, just as I pointed out before, it says;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"...Climatology or climate science is the study of climate,.."
(irrelevant note on origin in brackets edited out)

The words "Climatology or climate science" in the above wiki link clearly and obviously logically implies that "climate science" equates with "climatology" therefore clearly logically implying all climate scientists must be climatologists by definition.

In contrast, you have failed to show a single wiki quote that contradicts that or even merely vaguely hints at the contrary.

My source of info is wiki and I will believe wiki's word on science over your ignorant word on science any day.

Well?

Originally posted by humy
No, it clearly contradicts your claim because, just as I pointed out before, it says;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"...Climatology or climate science is the study of climate,.."
(irrelevant note on origin in brackets edited out)

The words "Climatology or climate science" in the above wiki link clearly and obviously logically implies that " ...[text shortened]... i and I will believe wiki's word on science over your ignorant word on science any day.

Well?

No it does not. Nobody is claiming climatologists are not climate scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

The link above list a lot of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists, many of which I have pointed out to you. THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM.

FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

The link above list a lot of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists,

Exactly where in that link does it say/imply that some (let alone "lots" ) listed as climate scientists there are not climatologists? It clearly doesn't. Wiki makes no such claim.

Nobody is claiming climatologists are not climate scientists.

and nobody (but you) is claiming that a quantified climate scientist can be not a quantified climatologist.
As I have already shown, wiki implies that all climate scientists are climatologists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"...Climatology or climate science is the study of climate,.."
(irrelevant note on origin in brackets edited out)

The word "or" in the words "Climatology or climate science" in the above wiki link clearly and obviously logically implies that "climate science" equates with "climatology" therefore clearly logically implying all climate scientists must be climatologists by definition.
Do you deny this? If so, please explain to us how it doesn't and explain to us the 'other' meaning of the word "or" used there...

So, to sum up, here we have a wiki quote that very clearly implies all climate scientists must be climatologists and this contrasts with NO quote (at least none so far presented by you nor seen by me) from wiki that in any way saying/implying the contrary to that.

Well?

Originally posted by humy
Exactly where in that link does it say/imply that some (let alone "lots" ) listed as climate scientists there are not climatologists? It clearly doesn't. Wiki makes no such claim.

Nobody is claiming climatologists are not climate scientists.

and nobody (but you) is claiming that a quantified climate scientist can be not a quantified cl ...[text shortened]... by you nor seen by me) from wiki that in any way saying/implying the contrary to that.

Well?

"Exactly where in that link does it say/imply that some (let alone "lots" ) listed as climate scientists there are not climatologists?"

I gave you several examples of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists. If you insist that they are indeed climatologists as well all you have to do is prove it and I will admit I am wrong. Since there are plenty of them listed on the link below it should be easy for you....if you are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Since you are wrong and you likely know it, you will likely avoid proving anything despite it being such an easy thing to do....if you were right.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Exactly where in that link does it say/imply that some (let alone "lots" ) listed as climate scientists there are not climatologists?"

I gave you several examples of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists. If you insist that they are indeed climatologists as well all you have to do is prove it and I will admit I am wrong. Since there are plen ...[text shortened]... ll likely avoid proving anything despite it being such an easy thing to do....if you were right.

I gave you several examples of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists.

No, you didn't.

If you insist that they are indeed climatologists as well all you have to do is prove it

No, I don't have to prove that because I admit the the possibility that wiki might be wrong (wiki is sometimes wrong after all) and therefore the possibility that not all qualified climate scientists are qualified climatologists so that isn't my claim.
My claim is merely that wiki clearly implies all qualified climate scientists are qualified climatologists and thus wiki is my source of that info, which you deny by calling me a "LIAR" despite the fact I have shown you the evidence.
I have already repeatedly proven wiki implies this by pointing out to you the word "or" in the words "..Climatology or climate science is the study of climate,.." in the wiki link.
My source if info is still wiki and I trust wiki's word on science over your ignorant word on science any day.

In contrast, your claim was that wiki says/implies NOT all qualified climate scientists are qualified climatologists. You have yet to show this. Thus, obviously, because I have already shown evidence for my claim but you have still yet to show evidence for your claim, the burden of proof is now on your claim, not mine.

Well?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Yes, I did.

You can be a meteorologist and be a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Afiesimama

You can even be an astrophysicist and be a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

You can find many more on the wikipedia link of "climate scientists" as well. Many climate scientists are not climatologis ...[text shortened]... mptions. How many times have I told you to NOT ASSUME? Don't you listen? What is wrong with you?

Humy is a liar. All can see that I provided examples of climate scientists that are not climatologists. I even provided more than these two in the past.

This dishonesty is typical of GW alarmists. They cannot debate truthfully.

Originally posted by humy

I gave you several examples of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists.

No, you didn't.

If you insist that they are indeed climatologists as well all you have to do is prove it

No, I don't have to prove that because I admit the the possibility that wiki might be wrong (wiki is sometimes wrong after all) and ...[text shortened]... et to show evidence for your claim, the burden of proof is now on your claim, not mine.

Well?

"No, I don't have to prove that because I admit the the possibility that wiki might be wrong"

You admit it now, but you never admitted it before. You were wrong and you know it. You are just a stubborn liar.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You were wrong and you know it.

No, I am right and you are a liar by calling me a liar when I showed the proof that I wasn't lying.
I see your attempt to move the goal posts because I see at last you now don't deny that wiki clearly implies what I said and doesn't say anywhere the contrary which you claim; that clearly means you know you were wrong and I was right all the long; just too dishonest to ever admit it.

Originally posted by humy
No, I am right and you are a liar by calling me a liar when I showed the proof that I wasn't lying.
I see your attempt to move the goal posts because I see at last you now don't deny that wiki clearly implies what I said and doesn't say anywhere the contrary which you claim; that clearly means you know you were wrong and I was right all the long; just too dishonest to ever admit it.

LOL!

You admitted wikipedia is unreliable and now you cite that very unreliable source as your so called proof?????

🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain


You admitted wikipedia is unreliable

I said no such thing. I said wiki is sometimes wrong; That doesn't mean to say wiki isn't right for about 99.99% of the time. I would say that makes it reasonably reliable. So you lie again.

and now you cite that very unreliable source as your so called proof?????

Firstly, wiki's word isn't absolute proof and I never claimed it was.
You must now be getting really desperate putting words in my mouth we all can clearly see I did not say; that shows how dishonest you are. So you lie again.
Secondly, and completely contrary to all you said before, I see now you admit wiki WAS my source of that info just as I said it was all the long thus you admit you were lying all along and I was telling the truth all along; thank you.