re: #208 SixDegrees

Nonetheless, the statement was made that the cosmic ray hypothesis had been made by someone who wasn’t a climate scientist. I assume that observation is there for a reason, and that the reason is to somehow denigrate the hypothesis on those merits. If that’s a reason to reject the hypothesis, then the filmmaker’s lack of credentials is also just as valid a reason for rejecting whatever message it is he’s trying to convey.

[snip]

I do notice, over and over, when there is a reference to some AGW skeptic, or at least a scientist that doesn’t march to the exact same tune as the Hadley/CRU group, then it’s always important to point out that the person is not a climate scientist, instead he/she is a geologist or some other possibly allied regimen, but not a real climate scientist.

But if a person is totally of the “Accepted” school of AGW thought, the person can be a film maker, a geologist, a biologist (Denmark’s Fog) and all sorts of allied scientist.

I wonder if underwear color also figures into the science?