Australian Politics Forum - Hottest year on record

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156265
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #120 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:39am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:40pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:39pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:05pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:

Mine is a world of probabilities.

Yet, you completely ignore the probability that AGW may not be real.

No, yours is most certainly not a world of probabilities: yours is a world of closed-minded, blind faith.

Are you going to pretend that you don't deny the possibility that AGW is real. I know you call yourself a skeptic but your rhetoric is 100% denialism. You just lack the courage to admit where you really stand

Please explain how AGW is actually plausible.

In you own words, if you can (since you are so sure about it).

Well first of all I didn't say I was sure about climate change. They are your words because, as a denialist you obfuscate to hide the fact that you lie about the science so you don't have to be put to the trouble of having to do something about it to remedy the situation. Secondly and most importantly why would I debate the climate science with you. Who are you. Do you know sh!t about climate science. Have you studied it, do you have any qualifications in the field, do you work as a climate scientist. If you were genuinely interested in the likely truth of the matter why on earth would you be debating it with someone like you with no expertise in the field. What on earth could that achieve or prove. It's certainly not a scientific approach. But of course, as I say, you're not really interested in the science are you. You just want to lie about it so you don't have to be put out to do something to remedy the situation.

All you had to say was "I don't know".

Ah yes but your BS and unscientific approach to this whole subject needs to be exposed and so I'm just doing my bit to expose it.

So far, all you've done is prove that you can't "explain how AGW is actually plausible".

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

The Heartless Felon Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2869 Gender:	Re: Hottest year on record Reply #121 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:42am Gettin' a bit tropical in Brissie...bloody AGW. Or is it the weather?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 156265 Gender:	Re: Hottest year on record Reply #122 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:46am The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:42am: Gettin' a bit tropical in Brissie...bloody AGW. Or is it the weather? According to the Climate Church: If it's getting hotter, that's AGW. If it's getting colder, that's just the weather.
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #123 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:48pm

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:39pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:05pm:

Please explain how AGW is actually plausible.

In you own words, if you can (since you are so sure about it).

Well first of all I didn't say I was sure about climate change. They are your words because, as a denialist you obfuscate to hide the fact that you lie about the science so you don't have to be put to the trouble of having to do something about it to remedy the situation. Secondly and most importantly why would I debate the climate science with you. Who are you. Do you know sh!t about climate science. Have you studied it, do you have any qualifications in the field, do you work as a climate scientist. If you were genuinely interested in the likely truth of the matter why on earth would you be debating it with someone like you with no expertise in the field. What on earth could that achieve or prove. It's certainly not a scientific approach. But of course, as I say, you're not really interested in the science are you. You just want to lie about it so you don't have to be put out to do something to remedy the situation.

You certainly have a lot of froth and fuss to say about something you are not sure about.
I think you simply don't know. Why not just come out and say it? Why beat about the bush endlessly?

No shame in it - nobody understands how the climate work. At best they know a bit here and a bit there. But how it all hangs together is not understood.

A deceitful argument as usual. I'm not sure about climate change in the same way as you cant be sure about most things but the clear probability is that climate change is real given the evidence and consensus of opinion amongst those who are qualified and have studied the subject over many years. What would be shameful would be to reject those qualified opinions because of the childish amateurish games you play to deceive the population so that you can be spared the sacrifices you have to make to remedy the situation.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #124 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:10pm

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:

Mine is a world of probabilities.

Yet, you completely ignore the probability that AGW may not be real.
...

You confuse probability and possibility. All things are possible; including that the vast majority of the best qualified and every organisation of reputable scientists is wrong.

As I said, mine is a world of probabilities. What evidence can you present to support your contention that the probability that they're wrong* is higher than the probability that they're right*?

* Crude binary, pandering to your limited Conservative mind.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

...
Nope, no confusion.

And, as I said, yours is not a world of probabilities: yours is a world of closed-minded, blind faith.

It looks to me like you're the one with the blind faith. You are a church-goer, aren't you, greggerypeccary?

So outline your understanding of the difference between possibility and probability.

You say there's a probability that AGW is not real. So what is that probability?

What is the probability that the vast majority of the best qualified and every organisation of reputable scientists is wrong*? How does it compare with the probability that they're right*?

Present your evidence.

* Crude binary, pandering to your limited Conservative mind.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:05pm by # »

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #125 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:11pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:40pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:39pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:05pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:

Mine is a world of probabilities.

Yet, you completely ignore the probability that AGW may not be real.

No, yours is most certainly not a world of probabilities: yours is a world of closed-minded, blind faith.

Are you going to pretend that you don't deny the possibility that AGW is real. I know you call yourself a skeptic but your rhetoric is 100% denialism. You just lack the courage to admit where you really stand

Please explain how AGW is actually plausible.

In you own words, if you can (since you are so sure about it).

Well first of all I didn't say I was sure about climate change. They are your words because, as a denialist you obfuscate to hide the fact that you lie about the science so you don't have to be put to the trouble of having to do something about it to remedy the situation. Secondly and most importantly why would I debate the climate science with you. Who are you. Do you know sh!t about climate science. Have you studied it, do you have any qualifications in the field, do you work as a climate scientist. If you were genuinely interested in the likely truth of the matter why on earth would you be debating it with someone like you with no expertise in the field. What on earth could that achieve or prove. It's certainly not a scientific approach. But of course, as I say, you're not really interested in the science are you. You just want to lie about it so you don't have to be put out to do something to remedy the situation.

All you had to say was "I don't know".

Ah yes but your BS and unscientific approach to this whole subject needs to be exposed and so I'm just doing my bit to expose it.

So far, all you've done is prove that you can't "explain how AGW is actually plausible".

Why on earth would you look to me or to anyone else on this forum to prove AGW to you. Are you stupid?. This is a complex area requiring many years of study and dedication to understand all the factors involved and you look to yobos like Soren and Longy to make sense of it for you.
I gather from a few things you've said that you're a lawyer. Really? They must have lowered the bar a lot over the last few years. Clearly you're not a litigation lawyer. You ever heard of expert evidence. It has a value. It means something. We can't all be experts in every field and so we look to the opinion of experts who have spent time studying and developing skills in things that we never took the time to delve into ourselves. Ive seen High Court judges and seen constant references to them in the law reports willingly deferring to expert opinion because of the simple common sense approach that experts are likely to know more about their field of study then they are. Its an aspect of the scientific method. And so one has to ask. Are you too stupid to understand the fundamental logic of this approach or are you being deceitful. I know what i think it is.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90877
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #126 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:40pm

I'll make it easy for you all - until you can stop overall pollution and CO2 whatever - allowing that this is the problem - with the main contributors now being China, India and the like....

...you are merely doing a Don Quixote and tilting at windmills that are, in turn, not generating alternative power for us... just empty sky and moving parts to draw the attention away from the ambush..... visual interference.... just a light show in the morning mist..... oh. not that morning mist...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Hottest year on record Reply #127 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:07pm Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:40pm: ... windmills that are, in turn, not generating alternative power for us... ... You can credibly substantiate that assertion, can't you?
Back to top	IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #128 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:13pm

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:35pm:

...
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Or are you saying that nothing less than 100% will suffice?

Considering the very, very small differences in temperature that are being reported, yes.

Substantiation? Link to any scientific projection with a 100% confidence level?

Still waiting, greggerypeccary. Have you been making stuff up again?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #129 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:22pm

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:35pm:

...
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Or are you saying that nothing less than 100% will suffice?

Considering the very, very small differences in temperature that are being reported, yes.

Substantiation? Link to any scientific projection with a 100% confidence level?

Still waiting, greggerypeccary. Have you been making stuff up again?

100% confidence levels would mean no error in the measurement process minimum which means greggy don't understand how even a ruler works!

I hope he was in tongue in cheek mode like all those laughing hyena economists try and give the impression they're allowed to be in whilst remaining credible to sow the lie that black is actually white: oh, the divine art called SUBTLETY is strong with these ones Shocked

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #130 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:27pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:22pm:

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:35pm:

...
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Or are you saying that nothing less than 100% will suffice?

Considering the very, very small differences in temperature that are being reported, yes.

Substantiation? Link to any scientific projection with a 100% confidence level?

Still waiting, greggerypeccary. Have you been making stuff up again?

100% confidence levels would mean no error in the measurement process minimum which means greggy don't understand how even a ruler works!
...

Heisenberg, Heisenberg, wherefore art thou Heisenberg?

I know the Uncertainty Principle doesn't really apply, but I couldn't resist. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90877
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #131 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:29pm

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:

... windmills that are, in turn, not generating alternative power for us... ...

You can credibly substantiate that assertion, can't you?

Of course - not a single one of Don Quixote's windmills was for the generation of power.... I see that alongside your other attributes, a classical allusion is but an illusion to you....

**kisses off fingers in the manner of the good ol' days in Saigon.. ahhh.. the joys of a classic modern education....

The windmills of which I speak are the windmills against which he, like your good self and confreres in your endless pursuit of global warming theory without an ounce of practical action, are the windmills of the minds and of a distant but untouchable foe... I trust you can see the allegory inherent in my witty, pithy and pertinent comments.....

These but the trappings and the suits of foes.....

Your REAL enemy lies elsewhere in modern society.... and at his behest we are all approaching Doom...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #132 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:46pm

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:27pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:22pm:

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:35pm:

...
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Or are you saying that nothing less than 100% will suffice?

Considering the very, very small differences in temperature that are being reported, yes.

Substantiation? Link to any scientific projection with a 100% confidence level?

Still waiting, greggerypeccary. Have you been making stuff up again?

100% confidence levels would mean no error in the measurement process minimum which means greggy don't understand how even a ruler works!
...

Heisenberg, Heisenberg, wherefore art thou Heisenberg?

I know the Uncertainty Principle doesn't really apply, but I couldn't resist. Wink

Gets people neurons firing and thats the important thing: to be alert but not alarmed or something Cool

Seriously, where is the war effort?

No war effort means we are still at the start of the kubler ross curve frozen in denial.... too scared to tremble in fear we continue the dreaming but apparently we are all treated as the dogs ofgrass and i wouldn't imagine panic and economic mayhem are far away, making the anticipationof this by govt not too far away either which means good

?????

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #133 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:47pm

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:

... windmills that are, in turn, not generating alternative power for us... ...

You can credibly substantiate that assertion, can't you?

Of course - not a single one of Don Quixote's windmills was for the generation of power....

Classical windmills may not have been generating electricity but they were doing work, were they not? Is it possible to do work without generating power, even though that power be mechanical?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Hottest year on record Reply #134 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 3:34pm Power is work rate: so of course it's not possible to do work without generating power: the more apt question is how much power is lost through the conversion via friction etc to form usable power! Power is work per unit of time! Power is work!!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged