You know, I'm not a climatologist but I am a scientist. I know enough to know that climate change inc. has never made a short or medium range hypothesis of testable accuracy and been right - not once. It is always excused by saying the next, 'more detailed' model will fix the problem but so far it never hasI think only actual real ass scientists should get to say that someone is not following the science. That way no one will be following the science. And then we can call it a day.
Seriously though I do kinda think that. Kirk, or whoever, maybe your average rando blue-check Twitterer, admonishing people to follow the science or claiming that people who don't agree with them are not following the science, I think isn't helping.
It's something I've really hated for a long time now. It's like people arguing about global warming who aren't climatologists and really don't have the depth of working knowledge to do anything but throw experts at dissenters and claim they're anti-science. These people should just sit the **** down and let the real ass scientists debate stuff. Of course in public where everyone gets to hear the bad ideas being quashed. But, point is, we should all stop seeking proxies of the knowledge we lack to fight our internet battles as if we're smarter for it.
Then 400 ppm of C02 is thrown around as some point of devastation because that is the ppm when the earth was a lot warmer - but all that is is a pointless correlation. Far too many parameters are unknown and quite likely different between then and now for the comparison to be meaningful, and 'the earth is warming' is not any sort of prediction, either. It likely has been doing so since the last ice age. These people are not scientists regardless of what letters are after their name because they are not using the scientific method (hypothesize ==> predict ==> test ==> evaluate right/wrong ==> repeat). They are acolytes in the church of climate change