Groundhog Day: 2013 is fourth warmest year on record
By Staff Reporter on 22 January 2014

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US has released its global temperature analysis for 2013. It has found that the year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880 and it marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average.

Below Australian experts respond – with reactions put together by the Australian Science Media Centre.

Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe is professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, Queensland and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation

“The NOAA report confirms at a global scale what we know from Australian Bureau of Meteorology data released recently: the world is getting steadily warmer. While some media outlets are repeating the myth spread by deniers that there has been a pause in warming, the NOAA data confirm that the trend of global warming is continuing. It also confirms that we are seeing more extremes of weather, as the science has been warning us to expect for 25 years. This is further evidence that our governments need to pay attention to the science rather than uninformed self-appointed critics, and take concerted action, both to reduce our domestic production of greenhouse gases and to halt the disastrous proposals to expand fossil fuel exports.”

Professor Neville Nicholls is in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, Victoria

“The warmth of recent years is even more dramatic if you look at global temperatures over land. Over land, every one of the last 13 years (2001-2013) is in the list of the warmest 14 years on record. Only one year from the 20th century (1998) is amongst the 14 warmest years over land. 1998 was the fifth warmest year over land; 2007, 2010, 2005 and 2013 were each warmer than 1998. Global temperatures over land have increased at a rate of about 1.5°C per century, over the last 15 years.”

Professor Dave Griggs is CEO of ClimateWorks Australia & Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute at Monash University

“The global temperature figures are out and it feels like groundhog day talking about what a hot year it has been, the 37th consecutive year with temperatures above the 20th century average.”

Professor John Quiggin is an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow in the School of Economics at the University of Queensland and a member of the Climate Change Authority

“The NOAA has reported, yet again, evidence on the continuing upward trend in global temperatures. The safest prediction that can be made with respect to this news is that it will do nothing to change the actual or ostensible opinions of self-described “sceptics”, most of whom will continue to think that the occurrence of a single relatively hot year (1998) in the late 20th century implies that global warming has “stopped” or “paused” in the 21st century.

“Only someone completely ignorant of time series statistics could make such a claim. Sadly, such people are numerous, and determine the positions adopted by sections of the media and some members of the current government, as well as of conservative political parties in most English speaking countries and elsewhere. In these circumstances, there is little chance that effective action will be taken to stabilise the global climate before it is too late”

" ... since records began in 1880 ... "    ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:00pm:

" ... since records began in 1880 ... "    ;D

So you have no rational comment, greggerypeccary?

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery but I guess it'll make a headline in some obscure alarmist blog.


Tuesday, January 21, 2014

It's Official: 2013 was the 4th7th10th107th... warmest year since the Little Ice Age
Surprisingly, official government temperature records disagree on how much global warming there was in 2013 in comparison other years that are statistically-insignificant-meaningless-hundredths-of-a-degree different.

One thing is for sure, the globe has fortunately recovered from the Little Ice Age, which coincidentally ended in ~1850 at the start of the instrumental global temperature record, and which shows after UHI-artificial-warming and up-tampered data the temperature rise could have been as much as a whopping 0.7C since 1850. Not only that, the world's oceans have warmed 0.09C over the past 55 years alone!
NOAA Says 2013 Was The Fourth Warmest Year
NASA Says 2013 Was Seventh Warmest Year
RSS AMSU 2013: 10th warmest year on record
CET: 2013 was 107th warmest year on record [longest instrumental temperature record]
HADCRU [unofficial analysis]: 2013 8th warmest year on record
Report: Fed scientists accused of ‘unjustifiably adding on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official ‘raw’ temperature record’
Related:

New paper asks: 'Would the 'real' temperature dataset please stand up?'; finds 'We have no ability to know' the true temperature data
A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters examines 8 datasets of temperature & precipitation observations in China over the past 105 years and finds significant unexplained differences between datasets, concluding,
"Because observations coming from different datasets do have differences, which one we can believe among the various so-called ‘observed climate datasets’? Indeed, we have no ability to know the ‘truth value’"
Indeed, two of the Chinese datasets in the paper show there was essentially no warming in China from 1950-2005.

Furthermore, the paper notes that because we don't know which temperature datasets are correct [if any], climate models based upon flawed temperature data will result in erroneous "tuning" of climate models and therefore biased projections i.e. GIGO]. Excerpt from the conclusion:
All of these results bring about a new challenge in the field of climate change. So-called ‘observed climate datasets’ play important roles in driving hydrologic models, evaluating global circulation models (GCMs) and regional climate models (RCM). Because observations coming from different datasets do have differences, which one we can believe among the various so-called ‘observed climate datasets’? Indeed, we have no ability to know the ‘truth value’; what we need to do is reduce the disagreement among the ‘observed datasets’ and depress their uncertainty.
As lamented in Climategate emails by Phil Jones to James Hansen, if the Chinese stopped their commendable practice of moving thermometers away from contamination by the Urban Heat Island [UHI] effect and instead taken temperature readings contaminated by airport jet exhaust [as the rest of the world did], the Chinese temperature data would have shown more artificial warming. 

One can't deny that temperature data contradictions, contamination, errors and tampering are indeed a worldwide climate phenomenon.

Related:

Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddardJan 11

Phil Jones calculates 1850 SH temperature to a precision of 0.001, based on a single thermometer in Tasmania pic.twitter.com/HSmNeeIIgr
Hide photo Reply   Retweeted   Favorite   More

Is this the same noaa #?

HomeLatest News
Support And Advice
RSS Latest News
How The Prom Process Works
Support
Videos
The Model Atmosphere (PDF)
Greenhouse Effect Experiment (PDF)
Copernicus Meets The Greenhouse Effect (PDF)
Observations On Backradiation
History Of Radiation
Radiated Energy
Greenhouse Effect Refutation
Absence Of A Measurable Greenhouse Effect
New Model Of The Human Cornea
The Human Cornea's Structure
Publications
Alternative Model To Predict Global Temperatures Other Than Based On CO2
David J. Pristash
Is Sustainable Energy Even Possible At The Global Level?
David J. Pristash
Finite Element Model For Atmospheric IR-Absorption
Joseph Reynen
Back Radiation Greenhouse Effect Of 33 Kelvin Possible?
Ross McLeod
Why CO2 Has Nothing To Do With Temperature
Darko Butina
One-Way Heat Flow Formulation With Planck Absorption And Re-Emission
by Joseph Reynen
PROM
Membership Sign-Up
Username Reminder
Password Reminder
All Special Offers
Career Development
Member Promos
Forum
Members
Principles Of Association
Why PSI Is A Private Assoc.
PSI Mission Statement
Policies
AboutLogin

User Name 

Password 

Remember Me 


Forgot your password?
Forgot your username?
Create an account
HomeLatest NewsBreaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

JAN
19
BREAKING: NEW CLIMATE DATA RIGGING SCANDAL ROCKS US GOVERNMENT

Written by John O'Sullivan

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record.  Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:00pm: " ... since records began in 1880 ... "    ;D So you have no rational comment, greggerypeccary?

Perhaps you missed this bit: "since records began in 1880".

This thread cannot be taken seriously.

Sorry.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:00pm: " ... since records began in 1880 ... "    ;D So you have no rational comment, greggerypeccary? Perhaps you missed this bit: "since records began in 1880". This thread cannot be taken seriously. Sorry.

You have good reason to be sorry.

So you still have no rational comment, greggerypeccary?

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....

Plus enough more to risk being banned for spamming.

So what do the vast majority of the best qualified say? Does any organisation of reputable scientists say what you want to believe?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Grist might help you.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming.

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming.

Can you substantiate that assertion?

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

So you concede that they're probably right*?

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

No.

They might be right, they might be wrong.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm:

lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion?

Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. No. They might be right, they might be wrong.

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov

If that's a name, does one person an Academy make?

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. No. They might be right, they might be wrong. I'll take that as a 'yes'.

It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such.

My answer was in fact a 'no'.  I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time.

"Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct.

There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that.  However, I'm not saying that it's likely.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov If that's a name, does one person an Academy make?

You're not familiar with the work of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov?

In order to get a balanced view, you really should study the works of those who don't support the AGW theory as well as those who do.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  My God. I don't know what kind of quackery he practices but I sure feel sorry for anyone he represents.  Hasn't even got the brains to listen to expert evidence when he himself has no idea or qualifications on the subject.  #, this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be.   I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. Although there is a large number of them, the majority, including the majority in power are embarrassed by them but don't have the courage to buck the big $$$ that's financing denialism. That's why we need to take drastic measures ourselves.  We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it.  If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right.  Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm.  One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.       

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  My God. I don't know what kind of quackery he practices but I sure feel sorry for anyone he represents.  Hasn't even got the brains to listen to expert evidence when he himself has no idea or qualifications on the subject.  #, this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be.   I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. Although there is a large number of them, the majority, including the majority in power are embarrassed by them but don't have the courage to buck the big $$$ that's financing denialism. That's why we need to take drastic measures ourselves.  We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it.  If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right.  Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm.  One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.       

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  My God. I don't know what kind of quackery he practices but I sure feel sorry for anyone he represents.  Hasn't even got the brains to listen to expert evidence when he himself has no idea or qualifications on the subject.  #, this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be.   I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. Although there is a large number of them, the majority, including the majority in power are embarrassed by them but don't have the courage to buck the big $$$ that's financing denialism. That's why we need to take drastic measures ourselves.  We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it.  If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right.  Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm.  One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.

What I said was right: "it doesn't mean that they are correct" (but that doesn't mean I'm saying that they are incorrect).

Your failure to understand this basic fact says an awful lot about you, and exposes your ignorance when it comes to all things scientific.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it.  If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right.  Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm.  One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.

I'm sceptical of the AGW theory.

Could you explain to me how that translates into me "doing irreparable harm"?

Thank you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov If that's a name, does one person an Academy make? You're not familiar with the work of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov?

If he exists, I'm sure you'll link appropriately.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

In order to get a balanced view, you really should study the works of those who don't support the AGW theory as well as those who do.

If you want a balanced view, you'll give more credence to the majority than the fringe.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. No. They might be right, they might be wrong. I'll take that as a 'yes'. It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such. My answer was in fact a 'no'.  I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time. "Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct. There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that.  However, I'm not saying that it's likely.

My interpretation is based on the inference that probability is clearly beyond you comprehension.

"They might be right, they might be wrong." You might like to contemplate the probability that they're unlikely to be either.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:40pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. No. They might be right, they might be wrong. I'll take that as a 'yes'. It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such. My answer was in fact a 'no'.  I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time. "Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct. There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that.  However, I'm not saying that it's likely. My interpretation is based on the inference that probability is clearly beyond you comprehension. "They might be right, they might be wrong." You might like to contemplate the probability that they're unlikely to be either.

That's what I don't understand about Greggery, he says they might be right they might be wrong but in that case he should call both sides idiots when it's obvious he tries to ridicule only one side, just sit it out on the fence. If I held his position, and I do, they could be wrong but data and probability tells me they probably right. If I held his view I would just sit on the side until I could discern the probability of them being correct/incorrect.

He says says that then seems to take a side and slang off the other. The anti-AGW people say some totally ridiculous things sometimes and he doesn't call them out on it. Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

flip

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:40pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. No. They might be right, they might be wrong. I'll take that as a 'yes'. It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such. My answer was in fact a 'no'.  I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time. "Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct. There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that.  However, I'm not saying that it's likely. My interpretation is based on the inference that probability is clearly beyond you comprehension.

Interpretation isn't your strong point.

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:52pm: Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg? Certainly. I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count. However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is an idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking, I know you have said the above many times which is why it baffles me a little.

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 9:52pm: Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:52pm: Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg? Certainly. I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count. However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject. Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is and idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking.

Certainly.

Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind.

They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong.

They are completely closed-minded.

One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact".

And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc.

If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too.

Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today.  Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 9:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 9:52pm: Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:52pm: Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg? Certainly. I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count. However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject. Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is and idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking. Certainly. Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind. They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong. They are completely closed-minded. One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact". And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc. If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too. Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today.  Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot".

OK, I don't know that I'm that dogmatic.. But, but, what about the antis that say it's definitely not happening or those that say it may be but it's definitely not man? Is that not just as dogmatic?

edit: I can explain exactly what and how ocean acidification means and works, how CO2 traps heat etc. The antis most often have no clue yet they "know".

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 10:03pm: Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 9:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 9:52pm: Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:52pm: Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg? Certainly. I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count. However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject. Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is and idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking. Certainly. Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind. They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong. They are completely closed-minded. One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact". And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc. If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too. Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today.  Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot". OK, I don't know that I'm that dogmatic.. But, but, what about the antis that say it's definitely not happening or those that say it may be but it's definitely not man? Is that not just as dogmatic?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 10:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 10:03pm: Certainly. Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind. They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong. They are completely closed-minded. One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact". And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc. If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too. Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today.  Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot". OK, I don't know that I'm that dogmatic.. But, but, what about the antis that say it's definitely not happening or those that say it may be but it's definitely not man? Is that not just as dogmatic?

I'll watch posts a little more closely and see;) Cheers.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  ...

On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional.


ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

... this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. ...

Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies.


ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ...

Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis.

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

... That's what I don't understand about Greggery, he says they might be right they might be wrong but in that case he should call both sides idiots when it's obvious he tries to ridicule only one side, just sit it out on the fence. If I held his position, and I do, they could be wrong but data and probability tells me they probably right. If I held his view I would just sit on the side until I could discern the probability of them being correct/incorrect. He says says that then seems to take a side and slang off the other. The anti-AGW people say some totally ridiculous things sometimes and he doesn't call them out on it. Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:52pm: Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg? Certainly. I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count. However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

As I've said before, it pays to think of greggerypeccary  as a pathological liar. Anything he says can be pretty much relied on to be untrue, either in total or in effect.

He says he has an open mind, does greggerypeccary, but is his behaviour consistent with that assertion? If the assertion is intended to confuse (as lies are) is it effective?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

... Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind. ...

What of those who don't claim to know enough to subscribe to anything and just accept the judgement of the best qualified? After all, you've admitted that you have no qualifications so why do you, in reality, deny the probability? Do you have a rational reason for, in reality, rejecting the judgement of the vast majority of the best qualified?

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:00am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  ... On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. ... Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ... Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis.

So #, 3 consecutive posts playing the man and not the ball. You are a disgrace.

Here's the rub, go ban yourself for at least 24hrs, or like in my case, make it 5 days and then say 'oh I don't know how that happenned.....'

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:40pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:54pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:35pm: Rider wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:24pm: Statistically insignificant.....total wankery Indeed. Some people just don't get it. You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary? Of course I do. The Earth is 4.45 billion years old. Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread. However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance. I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you. Yes, I acknowledge that. However, it doesn't mean that they are correct. What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*. * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct. So you concede that they're probably right*? * Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind. No. They might be right, they might be wrong. I'll take that as a 'yes'. It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such. My answer was in fact a 'no'.  I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time. "Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct. There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that.  However, I'm not saying that it's likely. My interpretation is based on the inference that probability is clearly beyond you comprehension. "They might be right, they might be wrong." You might like to contemplate the probability that they're unlikely to be either.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 7:55pm: ... My interpretation is based on the inference that probability is clearly beyond you comprehension. Interpretation isn't your strong point.

The last line of my post illustrates a characteristic of greggerypeccary's psychosis that's become increasingly evident. In deleting it, greggerypeccary confirms his problem.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

# wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ... Absolutely certain. ...

Objecting to the IPCC's 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is anthropogentic,
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:59pm: Or are you saying that nothing less than 100% will suffice? ... yes.

It seems greggerypeccary needs certainty. He can't handle nuance. Anything beyond simple binaries (yes/no, true/false) baffles him.

The line that greggerypeccary couldn't handle refers to the complexity of climate science and the improbability of anyone being totally "right" or totally "wrong" (although some denialists do seem to be having a good try at the latter). To me, the question is: who is likely to be most right? In my experience, that's usually the majority. Were it not so, would they still be the majority?

Pity greggerypeccary, for one so ill-equipped to comprehend its complexities, the universe must be a fearsome place.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:44pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov If that's a name, does one person an Academy make? You're not familiar with the work of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov? If he exists, I'm sure you'll link appropriately.

"If he exists ... "?  Why am I not surprised at that admission of ignorance?

http://www.cefls.org/esenior_2_4_search_engine.htm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:09am:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 7:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:44pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov If that's a name, does one person an Academy make? You're not familiar with the work of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov? If he exists, I'm sure you'll link appropriately. "If he exists ... "?  Why am I not surprised at that admission of ignorance? http://www.cefls.org/esenior_2_4_search_engine.htm

I prefer http://www.johntedesco.net/blog/2012/06/21/how-to-solve-impossible-problems-daniel-russells-awesome-google-search-techniques/

I'm not exactly sure why you think anyone is interested in what you prefer.

Perhaps you could explain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

I'm not exactly sure why you think anyone is interested in what you prefer. Perhaps you could explain.

Trolling, greggerypeccary?

# wrote on Jan 24^th, 2014 at 8:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2014 at 8:12pm: I'm not exactly sure why you think anyone is interested in what you prefer. Perhaps you could explain. Trolling, greggerypeccary?

No, not at all.

I'm asking you a legitimate question, which you have chosen to ignore.  Not surprising, since every time you are confronted you run away like a frightened school girl.

Moreovoer, I'm trying to educate you on the works of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov.  However, you choose to ignore that as well.

If there is anyone in this forum trolling at the moment, it's you.

So, have you read anything about Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov?

And if so, what is you uneducated opinion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov

http://www.gao.spb.ru/russian/cosm/astr/index.html

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Try to stay on topic, whilst also avoiding personal insults and diversionary tactics.  OK?  Cheers.

On a question of organisations, greggerypeccary posted the name of an individual. When challenged, greggerypeccary posted a link on how to use a search engine. When I suggested a better guide, greggerypeccary trolled. He went on to ignore a warning. This, despite prior warning.

Consequently, greggerypeccary will be taking a short break from this board.

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:33am:

On a question of organisations, greggerypeccary posted the name of an individual. When challenged, greggerypeccary posted a link on how to use a search engine. When I suggested a better guide, greggerypeccary trolled. He went on to ignore a warning. This, despite prior warning. Consequently, greggerypeccary will be taking a short break from this board.

Why don't you delete everyone but yourself....that seems the way this board is going? The hallmarks of a tiny intellect.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:43pm:

... Why don't you delete everyone but yourself....that seems the way this board is going? ...

Honest debate is encouraged. Dishonest tactics will earn a ban.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:28am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:43pm: ... Why don't you delete everyone but yourself....that seems the way this board is going? ... Honest debate is encouraged. Dishonest tactics will earn a ban.

How is pointing to eminently qualified alternative opinion/theory dishonest? 
It also points out that NASA has also measured parallel increases in the temperature of Mars over the same period however this is weather but qualifies as climate here.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:07am:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:28am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:43pm: ... Why don't you delete everyone but yourself....that seems the way this board is going? ... Honest debate is encouraged. Dishonest tactics will earn a ban. How is pointing to eminently qualified alternative opinion/theory dishonest?  It also points out that NASA has also measured parallel increases in the temperature of Mars over the same period however this is weather but qualifies as climate here.

Because the question was:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm:

lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion?

The answer was therefore SPAM. In this case that's an attempt to distract, which is dishonest.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:07am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:28am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:43pm: ... Why don't you delete everyone but yourself....that seems the way this board is going? ... Honest debate is encouraged. Dishonest tactics will earn a ban. How is pointing to eminently qualified alternative opinion/theory dishonest?  It also points out that NASA has also measured parallel increases in the temperature of Mars over the same period however this is weather but qualifies as climate here. Because the question was: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? The answer was therefore SPAM. In this case that's an attempt to distract, which is dishonest.

...and we don't want anyone going off the hymn-sheet do we?

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:41am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 10:07am: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 9:28am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:43pm: ... Why don't you delete everyone but yourself....that seems the way this board is going? ... Honest debate is encouraged. Dishonest tactics will earn a ban. How is pointing to eminently qualified alternative opinion/theory dishonest?  It also points out that NASA has also measured parallel increases in the temperature of Mars over the same period however this is weather but qualifies as climate here. Because the question was: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? The answer was therefore SPAM. In this case that's an attempt to distract, which is dishonest. ...and we don't want anyone going off the hymn-sheet do we?

I don't know about hymns, but I do want honest debate.

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

I don't know about hymns, but I do want honest debate.

Perhaps you could explain to everyone how this is "honest debate":

"Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar."

" ... greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390362770/39#39

Trolling, #?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:41pm: I don't know about hymns, but I do want honest debate. Perhaps you could explain to everyone how this is "honest debate": "Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar." " ... greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390362770/39#39 Trolling, #?

Honest reactions to honest opinions. The full post reads:
# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:00am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  ... On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. ... Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ... Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis.

In taking my comments out of context, you've pretty much proved my point(s).

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 7:10pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:41pm: I don't know about hymns, but I do want honest debate. Perhaps you could explain to everyone how this is "honest debate": "Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar." " ... greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390362770/39#39 Trolling, #? Honest reactions to honest opinions. The full post reads: # wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 9:00am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  ... On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. ... Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ... Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis. In taking my comments out of context, you've pretty much proved my point(s).

You didn't answer my question.

I can only assume that you are trolling.

Reported.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

# wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 7:10pm: # wrote on Jan 26th, 2014 at 12:41pm: I don't know about hymns, but I do want honest debate. Perhaps you could explain to everyone how this is "honest debate": "Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar." " ... greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis." http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390362770/39#39 Trolling, #? Honest reactions to honest opinions. The full post reads: # wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 9:00am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer.  ... On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. ... Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies. ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:47pm: ... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ... Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis. In taking my comments out of context, you've pretty much proved my point(s). You didn't answer my question. I can only assume that you are trolling. Reported.

The active moderator on this board is #. Who did you report it to?  I hope you reported it to a Global Moderator, most of whom would find it vexatious to report something from a User board and would probably give you a short holiday.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

... You didn't answer my question. ...

I disagree. The answer is:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

... Honest reactions to honest opinions. ...

You asked whether it's honest. I answered in relation to both the comments and the opinions to which they responded.

The subject was discussed briefly in the "defining SPAM" thread:

Quote:

Quite often, a troll's behaviour makes their character a subject for discussion. At some point, does that discussion become SPAM? If so, at what point does it become something other than a side issue?

Duplicate post.