"
There's really no point, because a mountain of evidence wouldn't stop you seeing what you want to see. Merely slagging off people who disagree with you doesn't win an argument for you, I'm afraid.""
Seeing as you were going to reply, this emotionally driven comment was not needed. No one has ever shown me any source to disprove any of the main arguments I have been making, ever. There are details I have got wrong that everyone jumps on that actually does not effect the central claims, and they focus on those, cos by that logic, if one aspect is incorrect then it all must be, it's how trolls work.
"Ignoring the condescending attitude for the moment; my definition of an expert is correct whether you agree or not. Someone with extensive knowledge of a subject is considered expert, regardless of whether that knowledge is gained empirically or academically.
Your last sentence, claiming to use the work of experts is ironic considering how easily you dismiss the conclusions of experts who don't happen to share your opinion, as in climate change for instance.
Anyway, I've said enough on this for now- I don't enjoy going round in circles for long"
The "condescending" attitude comes from your derisory unsubstanciated comments.

\Cause and effect is lost on you
No, an expert is an expert in subject matter in this context, I am not an expert because how can you be an expert by reading the work of experts in a field.
There is a big difference between knowing information and being able to apply it, to use it to create something new.
Expert is a relative term, it means nothing. It denotes authority and it is true that the rational logical humble opinion of 1 individual is more important than the authority of 1000 experts.
So see what ALL the "experts" say as well as opinions and works of non experts and make up your own mind, not just "make up your mind"
"
Your last sentence, claiming to use the work of experts is ironic considering how easily you dismiss the conclusions of experts who don't happen to share your opinion, as in climate change for instance."
This is where you fall down, lets take Climate change, who are these experts? Do you know? if not then how can you claim that? because the media said they all agree? Do you not see the disconnect there?
I really do study this climate change, have read all reports, and the work of many other credible people, just cos they dont agree with a perceived majority it doesn't mean they are wrong.
Now some chronology to shut you up. From 1985 to 2010 I believed in man mad global warming 100%
Then I started researching.
So I strongly disagree.
When you say I disagree with the experts, you are using language there to muddy the waters, because you don't actually say who are the experts whislt relegating the "experts" that don;t agree, off the top of my head, Richard Lindzen, MIT Climate scientist who has publidhed hundreds of climate science papers. Judith Curry, another well known climate scientist. Very disginguished people who say it is actually not true. They are hardly alone either. I only provide the data on everything from sea levels to temp records and show how NASA have alterted the data several times.
So you are saying the "experts" are the ones who you agree with? hmmm?
There is no science to date that shows 2 degrees warming is bad, yet look at the hysteria created.
Built on lies. I could post a million pages on here documenting the lies from the climatards
Apparently using the actual data collected from measurements is "not agreeing with the experts" is it?