I am a librarian not a scientist. I have a PhD in Philosophy and thus am more of a meta-physicist than a physicist. However, to paraphrase Tim Allen in the movie Galaxy Quest "It doesn’t take a good actor to recognize a bad one and it doesn't take a good scientist recognize a terrible one" The people promoting Global Warming are bad scientist.
Because most of them are also apparently as dumb as a sack of rocks here is how I put the argument for the simple minded.
"It is impossible to create the graphs used to support Global Warming with the data that the people who produced the graphs used. They also cannot use their models to work backwards from where the temperature is now and get an accurate picture of the temperature changes over the last 20 years or so. If you cannot accurately predict what has already happened then you cannot predict what hasn't happened."
At a slightly more sophisticated level I ask the Warmist to publish their error bars and confidence levels for their statistics. They don't even know what those are! But even if they did they cannot give you a confidence rating for their work because it is so statistically flawed that it is worthless. They simply have no idea what they are doing.
They are not scientist they are monist who worship nature.
I have seen several Warmist the past several weeks debunking critics who were less than well versed in statistical method. But at least the critics were TRYING to work with actual data. The Warmist do not even use their own data. Any Warmist still using EAU-CRU or ICCP data that has in the past three weeks been clearly and without doubt shown to be worthless should be shouted down. Phil Jones and Michael Mann simply made it up as they went along and then pummeled doubters with ad hominem attacks and charts created from worthless data. Indeed, the most unscientific of critics are more scientific and fact based than the average greenie cap&trader who appear to me to be morons who believe in a sort of noble savage world of grass huts and happy natives.
The greenies I've talked to don't know the difference between Carbon-Dioxide and Carbon-Monoxide. They can't tell you how much CO2 is in the atmosphere or how much of that is naturally occurring. They don't understand nature except in an impressionist painting or from grocery fliers from Whole Foods.
The real tragedy is that the Warmist have wasted 15 years or so and untold amounts of money on a fraud and that time and that money could have been used to solve some real environmental problems.
Global Warming is not about the environment. It can't be because there are no environmental issues associated with current levels of CO2, or if there are they are different issues than are being presented. Everything or almost everything they publish is provably false. I think it is actually about population control but I can't prove that. I think they are actually anti-human.
Until Next Time
The Blogger is a better scientist than Phil Jones of the EAU-CRU