How predictable.

“I at least admit when I don’t know something – and I appear to be the only one willing to be honest about the limits of my own knowledge.”

You don’t know squat.

As far as I can tell, I am the only honest one here.

I at least admit when I don’t know something – and I appear to be the only one willing to be honest about the limits of my own knowledge.

How is deferring to expert knowledge intellectually arrogant?

I at least admit when I don’t know something

But you argue from assertion constantly. This is a mess.

How predictable.

I am the only honest one here.

The dishonest always claim this.

crickets in response.

Don’t talk to me about crickets. I responded to your claim in the other thread:

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This means that it is NOT very likely that most (> 50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures BEFORE mid-20th century (before 1950) is caused by humans.

with:

No it does not mean that. It just means they do not want to claim that most of the observed increase in global average temperature in the first half of the 20th century is very likely (>90% IPCC definition) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It just means they are not making any claims about likelihood in that period. That doesn’t mean they are making a claim about proportions in that period. They’re just leaving that open with the proviso that the anthropogenic part is (significantly) greater than zero.

The only response from you is crickets. What hypocrisy.

As an electrical engineer with a law degree I have taken a great deal of science courses and math.

As someone who’s taught engineers I know you are not as versed in mathematics as you think you are. And if you truly are a lawyer – then we might have to modify “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client” to say something about the foolhardiness of someone who has you for a lawyer.

As far as I can tell, I am the only honest one here.

I at least admit when I don’t know something – and I appear to be the only one willing to be honest about the limits of my own knowledge.

I read, and form my own opinions and I express them,

Just because a bunch of people who read, and form their own opinions, and disagree with me – that doesn’t make me wrong.

Especially when I am saying we don’t have perfect knowledge of the climate and some are saying oh yes we do – we know every force and feedback perfectly.

What a joke.

As an electrical engineer with a law degree I have taken a great deal of science courses and math.

So when I hear people say that humans have caused 110% percent of the warming from 1950 and that natural forcings just disappeared from 1950 to the present – well it doesn’t pass the smell test.

I answer all the questions put to me as best as I can and then am taunted, name called, called a liar and called psychotic

I have been very honest and am the only one to suggest a plan – which has received crickets in response.

What is your plan to deal with CAGW (if it actually is catastrophic).

You know the other side is losing the argument when they resort to name calling.

But don’t pretend your opinion carries any more weight than mine.

Interesting comment, since on another post (the Mark Steyn ongoing discussion) you have a comment that implies (correct this if it is wrong) that even if there were climate scientists posting here you would say they are wrong. I base that on this:

He (Mann) and his cadre of like minded climate science advocates have lost their credibility with me.
I no longer trust anything they have to say – as they are no longer just reporting the facts – they are spinning the facts to try to encourage certain actions which they think would be the best actions to take.

So you refuse to deal honestly with the people who have spent a good deal of time explaining to you, as they have me, what the science says, because “they are not climate scientists”, and you say you would not trust a climate scientist. Win win for the resident science denier.

You could have said it more simply with “Nah nah nah I can’t hear you, I have my thumbs in my ears.”

You never had any intention of carrying on an honest discussion did you? Why don’t you come up with another “profession” and make new proclamations based on that.

Here’s another version:

“Unless you are a climate scientist you know no more than I.”
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/#comment-626317

To quote my reply:

This is patent nonsense. The attainment of knowledge doesn’t start at nothing and then jump to expertise. There are different levels, and your knowledge of climate science leaves much to be desired. The information you possess comes from sources that provide misinformation, not information, and you stubbornly refuse to be corrected. You suggest that climate scientists know more than you, but you consistently reject their results. You are incapable of answering legitimate questions, e.g. regarding the natural forcing(s) you claim are responsible for our warming climate. You almost never back up your assertions with links to scientific papers, and when you do, you show that you haven’t understood what you’ve read. You have no understanding of chronology or logic, and turn the latter on its head by confusing cause with effect. You are a persistent, painful-to-observe manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your thoroughgoing incompetence prevents you from recognizing that some of the persons who comment here have more scientific knowledge than you (or I ) will ever have.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

This statement presupposes that the reader knows the difference between opinions and facts, and it’s clear that you don’t.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/#comment-626322