Australian Politics Forum - Hottest year on record

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90883
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #135 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:12pm

# wrote on 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?

You have a technical point, though the allegory of Don Quickshotee was, as you know, about attacking mythical foes.... and the power of which I speak is in the modern arena of electrical power/energy.

We may well be reverting to windmills for pumping water and grinding our daily meal...

Aye, Arh - good John Miller be fixin' t' mill t'day! 'Tis Froidee afore we be gittin' our grain ground gross and goodly for God's day Feast of Small Saints.... aye.. be Short Person's Day among t' heathen.... or sold as such...

Will Brewer! Mayhap more ale!

Hysterical historical footnote:- The appellation Grappler is partially derived from the German for Gravedigger....

Prosit!

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #136 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:28pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on 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.

and there is the rub. WHAT EVIDENCE??? we are 0.8 degrees warmer than 50 years ago. that proves nothing at all out of the ordinary climactic variation over centuries and millennia. edvery climate model - EVERY ONE - has failed to even get close. the poles haven't melted, the glaciers haven't disappeared, sea level rises are exceedingly small etc etc etc...

so where is the evidence to even support the existence of a hypothesis nevermind the hypothesis itself?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156289
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #137 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:30pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on 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.

Nobody is asking anyone to "prove" anything.

This was the request, from another forum member:

"Please explain how AGW is actually plausible."

Once again, you've decided to avoid the request.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156289
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #138 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.

You seem a tad confused.

By all means though, tell me what it is that I've "made up".

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #139 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:28pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on 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.

and there is the rub. WHAT EVIDENCE??? we are 0.8 degrees warmer than 50 years ago. that proves nothing at all out of the ordinary climactic variation over centuries and millennia. edvery climate model - EVERY ONE - has failed to even get close. the poles haven't melted, the glaciers haven't disappeared, sea level rises are exceedingly small etc etc etc...

so where is the evidence to even support the existence of a hypothesis nevermind the hypothesis itself?

Rates of change Cool

here we go again Embarrassed

clouds say what???

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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #140 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.

You seem a tad confused.

By all means though, tell me what it is that I've "made up".

You're the one saying science should come with 100% confidence levels! How many sides of the street are you about to walk from this day forward we all wonder Cheesy

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 #141 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:49pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.
...

So where are your links to all those scientific projections with 100% confidence levels? Unless you made up the possibility.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156289
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #142 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:50pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.

You seem a tad confused.

By all means though, tell me what it is that I've "made up".

You're the one saying science should come with 100% confidence levels!

Nope, not me.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #143 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:30pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on 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.

Nobody is asking anyone to "prove" anything.

This was the request, from another forum member:

"Please explain how AGW is actually plausible."

Once again, you've decided to avoid the request.

It's plausibility comes from the conservation of energy theory that has, btw, simply been promoted to the echelon of law!

Shocked

What century is it again, dear friend ??!

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

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156289
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #144 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.
...

So where are your links to all those scientific projections with 100% confidence levels? Unless you made up the possibility.

Have you been out in the sun today?

I've never claimed that there are links to "scientific projections with 100% confidence levels".

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #145 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.

You seem a tad confused.

By all means though, tell me what it is that I've "made up".

You're the one saying science should come with 100% confidence levels!

Nope, not me.

Yes you are!

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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #146 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:54pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.
...

So where are your links to all those scientific projections with 100% confidence levels? Unless you made up the possibility.

Have you been out in the sun today?

I've never claimed that there are links to "scientific projections with 100% confidence levels".

...yet you argue that they ought to exist!

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

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156289
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #147 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:00pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.

You seem a tad confused.

By all means though, tell me what it is that I've "made up".

You're the one saying science should come with 100% confidence levels!

Nope, not me.

Yes you are!

Incorrect.

And you know it's incorrect, or you would have provided a link to the post where I supposedly made the claim.

Of course, you can't provide the link because the post doesn't exist.

Why do members of the Climate Church continue to tell lies. Is it a distraction?

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156289
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #148 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.
...

So where are your links to all those scientific projections with 100% confidence levels? Unless you made up the possibility.

Have you been out in the sun today?

I've never claimed that there are links to "scientific projections with 100% confidence levels".

...yet you argue that they ought to exist!

Incorrect.

You really should scroll back and read the posts properly, in order to save yourself any more embarrassment.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

True Blue...

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3748
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #149 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:10pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

# 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?

"Making stuff up"?

Not at all.
...

So where are your links to all those scientific projections with 100% confidence levels? Unless you made up the possibility.

Have you been out in the sun today?

I've never claimed that there are links to "scientific projections with 100% confidence levels".

...yet you argue that they ought to exist!

Incorrect.

You really should scroll back and read the posts properly, in order to save yourself any more embarrassment.

Some times you have to be embarrassed for them Greg as the Disciples from the Climate Church of ecoloons just don't seem to get IT...

Back to top

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"

Benjamin Franklin

IP Logged