However, since I'm paying for the microphone here, let me say two things. One, I've never claimed to be a climate expert. You will not find such a claim here at all. Two, you cite "websites" to prove your point. Are they credentialed websites? Were they written by people with doctoral degrees in climatology? If not, then the hot air created by your blazing hypocrisy is a greater threat to this planet than any carbon my activities might produce this year.

Third, you're not in the least interested in civilized debate. If you were, you would have attempted to have one instead of launching into an elitist and classist posture that specifically prohibits debate with anyone who does not meet your exacting standards which, I suspect, would eventually include no one at all. You don't want debate. You want compliance, conformity, and obeisance.

Sorry, but I've seen that pop up in history a few times and I don't look good in a brown shirt.

First of all, you are obviously not a scientist and have no idea how to even interpret data that is presented to you, yet you feel that your opinion is equally valid to that of a scientist who has spent half his life studying this subject. If you're talking about civil rights or something that every one has experience with, then sure you don't have to be an expert. But if you are talking about a complex science that requires interpretation of mathematical models and knowledge of years of literature then yes, like a physician/surgeon, you need to have some credentials for your opinion to be worth anything. Do you even know what "peer reviewed" means?

Second, you can't admit when you are wrong. Do a Google search for "aps climate" and the top 5 sites that pop up clearly show that the APS's stance on climate change has not changed.

You are right about one thing though, my elitism probably is showing. But maybe you can understand this after you've spent 5 years after college getting a PhD and then have morons come along and pretend to be experts after reading a couple biased websites.

Hell, Monckton doesn’t even know that there is no such thing as “degrees Kelvin”, as he puts it in his paper. Sorry, m’Lord, but it’s just “Kelvins”.

And have you the credentials to correct Lord Monckton?

Just so you know, the term "degrees Kelvin" was the appropriate term to use up to 1967, when the official designation was changed to "Kelvins". The alternate form seems entirely appropriate to use, if not canonical. At least this credentialed expert believes so. As do <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=%22degrees+kelvin%22&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go&quot; rel="external" rel="nofollow">all these papers written since 1967 in the publication Science.

I will suppose that you consider them less than knowledgeable in their fields as well. Consistency above all, yes?

Your insistence on attacking the man and not his message speaks volumes of the strength of your argument.

It amazes me how the right continues to deny the importance of credentials. Would you have surgery done by someone without a medical degree? Scientists (including physicists and climatologist) require just as much (probably more) expertise than surgeons to figure out how extremely complex systems work (just so you know, modeling the earth's climate is an immensely complex task). You simply sound like a bitter moron who's angry because he didn't get into grad school (or even college possibly)

But hey, if a guy who doesn't know how to properly express temperature scale measurements is the guy you want to tout as your expert on climate change, be my guest.

You are WRONG Jimmie-tard.

Time to wake up and eat your pbj and drink your milk Jimmie.