Do global warming deniers believe that TV sports anchors could beat the New England Patriots at football?

That question was about meteorologist's not TV weather announcers.

Climate science involves many different sciences, from physics to geology, but meteorology has to be the closest to the heart of the science.

Meteorologists are the New England Patriots of climate science.

No one can. They cheat really well

Your question is impossible to answer because:

1. You have conflated TV Weather Announcer with meteorologist.

2. Not all TV weather announcers are meteorologists.

3. Most meteorologists are not on TV.

If I were you I'd stick to smart *** answers and avoid smart *** questions.

Could the anchors beat the NE Pats, No, but they could probably beat the Chargers.

Many anchors, like the little drip Bob Costas, probably couldn't beat his way out of a paper bag. Many other sports anchors, like Phil Simms, Colinsworth, etc are former stars and they earned their expertise on the field.

Even though Simms beat my Broncos in a Superbowl, I still appreciate his expertise.

Many TV weathermen got their degrees and therefore, their opinions are more informed than your average Bear (or Charger) but yeah I don't really listen to them much either.

Given that 95% of the models are overestimating, the scientists are performing more like the Bad News Bears, than professional athletes. At least those working on the models.

People who predict the weather trends 1 day to 4 weeks in advance are extremely accurate , so clearly they must know what they're on about.

People who predict the long term future results of weather trends have never gotten a single prediction right, so clearly they can't have a clue what they're on about.

So as a professed lover of all things scientific, have a look at the statements above which are drawn from observable data and tell me on the basis of the evidence observed, who knows more about the climate? (climate essentially being a descriptive term for long term weather)

Lol

False analogy.

For one, the people you claim are scientists really aren't for the most part. If you look at the IPCC panel most of the people who worked on it were not scientists at all. Most of the scientists listed only edited specific sections and many of them were angry that their name was used to support the conclusions. The 97% claim has also been proven to be a fraud. So, we're not talking about the New England Patriots but something more like a semi-pro team.

Your claim that it would analogous to a football game is also false. The "game" in this sense is to predict weather. The ultimate aim of all climate science is to be able to understand the climate so that we can predict what it will be so that ultimately we can predict the weather. So, meteorologists aren't passively describing the game like sports anchors they are actively involved in the game every single day. How many climate scientists are involved in the "game" everyday? Very few and based on their predictions nearly all of them are horrible at it.

So, to use your analogy, meteorologists would be a professional NFL team. They do it every single day and are held accountable for their success or failure. The other side would be made mostly up of people who have never played football and of the few who have most are terrible at it. Al Gore has as much credibility as a football player as he does a climate scientist.

Idi