OK, it seems I need to explain some of the basics.
I don't have a physics PhD, and I am not a physicist or a climate scientist, but what I'm about to write are things that should be common knowledge.
Physics is a fundamental science, some say physics is THE fundamental science of everything from which all other sciences (chemistry, biology etc) are derived from.
But no human has the ability to be an expert on everything, which is why PhDs exist - a PhD is a course that lets the student gain deep knowledge in a specific area.
If a physicist does a PhD on the effects of gravity on time, then they won't be a climate scientist, but they will likely end up as an expert on GPS.
If a physicist does a PhD in a specific area of nanotechnology, then they won't be a climate scientist, but they might end up as an expert in making medical diagnostic tools.
If however, a physicist does a PhD in climate related areas, gets published in major journals after being peer-reviewed by other climate scientists during that PhD, follows up by doing a post-doc in climate areas and spends their life working in climate research, then that physicist has in fact become a climate scientist.
Get it?
The qualifications are one part of the story, but the peer-reviewed, sustained and consistent output is what makes you a expert in a specific field.
Einstein did his best scientific work while working as a patents clerk. Do people remember him as an expert on relativity, or as a legal assistant? Being a patents clerk has as much to do with relativity as toilet cleaning does.
Now lets look at Tony Heller. He has a bachelor's degree in Geology, and a Masters in electrical engineering. This is already a warning sign. There are legitimate reasons to do a Masters, but more often than not, a Masters is a consolation prize from a university to a student who attempted a PhD, but didn't have what it took to complete it. I don't know if that's the case for Tony, but there are good, documented reasons to suspect his abilities.
But as I said, the qualifications are only one part of the story, what about the work?
If you want to believe guys like Tony, that's on you, but I'd like to see why you believe work with such accurate flaws.
Instead of attacking people, why don't you point out why you don't believe the analysis showing Tony's work is garbage. Please use mathematical or scientific arguments, not rhetoric.
