Australian Politics Forum - Hottest year on record

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #180 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:44pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Just as an aside,the rate of temperature increase on the Planet Mars has been comparable with Planet Earth.

The answer for Mars is solar related.

Earth's on the other hand is caused by people.

Or so they will tell us.

Are you claiming zero tolerance of aberrant behaviour in said industry?

Actually I am stating that my view is that Eart's climate is changing as a result of natural phenomena.

Mars is warming by exactly the same rate of increase as Earth.

The population of Mars is 0.
It ain't from their industry.

It is (correctly) explained as being natural occurring on Mars and due to solar pattern change.

Yet the Earth's (which orbits the same Sun) is due to mankind.

We all know why you're here mate!

To expose brainwashed liars.

That's how energy companies make money is it Cool

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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #181 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:47pm

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?

Yes, it's the weather. Just a few data points contributing to the total.

It's just as wrong to point to a few hot days and assert "global warming" as it is to point to a few cold days and assert "not global warming".

Climate is measured from many data points, not just a few.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #182 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:48pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Our company is publicly listed so is owned by millions of people.

I would put it to you that the number of involved stakeholders defy your imagination!

Naming systems are curious things!!

I would put it to you that a publicly listed company is owned by millions of people with all different views and thoughts.

It also makes it far less likely that the company can be run to any specific agenda other than maximise of profit and long term growth.

If we don't evolve and change, we perish.

So your view of some kind of agenda is nonsense.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156299
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #183 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:49pm

Bam wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:47pm:

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?

Yes, it's the weather. Just a few data points contributing to the total.

It's just as wrong to point to a few hot days and assert "global warming" as it is to point to a few cold days and assert "not global warming".

Climate is measured from many data points, not just a few.

Define "many", and then explain how you came to that conclusion.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #184 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:50pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:44pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Just as an aside,the rate of temperature increase on the Planet Mars has been comparable with Planet Earth.

The answer for Mars is solar related.

Earth's on the other hand is caused by people.

Or so they will tell us.

Are you claiming zero tolerance of aberrant behaviour in said industry?

Actually I am stating that my view is that Eart's climate is changing as a result of natural phenomena.

Mars is warming by exactly the same rate of increase as Earth.

The population of Mars is 0.
It ain't from their industry.

It is (correctly) explained as being natural occurring on Mars and due to solar pattern change.

Yet the Earth's (which orbits the same Sun) is due to mankind.

We all know why you're here mate!

To expose brainwashed liars.

That's how energy companies make money is it Cool

No its by providing energy at competitive prices to a growing population.

Just as an aside, we have invested more $ renewable energy projects than anyone else.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #185 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:19pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:48pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Our company is publicly listed so is owned by millions of people.

I would put it to you that the number of involved stakeholders defy your imagination!

Naming systems are curious things!!

I would put it to you that a publicly listed company is owned by millions of people with all different views and thoughts.

It also makes it far less likely that the company can be run to any specific agenda other than maximise of profit and long term growth.

If we don't evolve and change, we perish.

So your view of some kind of agenda is nonsense.

Lol, we're actually defining the word "agenda" now are we?

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 #186 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:24pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:44pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Just as an aside,the rate of temperature increase on the Planet Mars has been comparable with Planet Earth.

The answer for Mars is solar related.

Earth's on the other hand is caused by people.

Or so they will tell us.

Are you claiming zero tolerance of aberrant behaviour in said industry?

Actually I am stating that my view is that Eart's climate is changing as a result of natural phenomena.

Mars is warming by exactly the same rate of increase as Earth.

The population of Mars is 0.
It ain't from their industry.

It is (correctly) explained as being natural occurring on Mars and due to solar pattern change.

Yet the Earth's (which orbits the same Sun) is due to mankind.

We all know why you're here mate!

To expose brainwashed liars.

That's how energy companies make money is it Cool

No its by providing energy at competitive prices to a growing population.

Just as an aside, we have invested more $ renewable energy projects than anyone else.

Is this the pr forum now? Greggy can stick up for himself ya know!

Lol, the oz politics forum has now been handed over to big energy: GOOD ONE FREEDIVER Embarrassed

Does Greggy work for 'your' company?? 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

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: Hottest year on record Reply #187 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:27pm ......
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:46pm by ImSpartacus2 » IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #188 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:28pm

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.

My answer is the same whether you want me to "prove" AGW or "explain how it is plausible". In both cases my answer is that this is a matter on which I defer to the experts. And this is clear from my response but of course you only chose to reproduce the first sentence of my response, which was a cheap trick typical of you. So now I reproduce my full response

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

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.

And so instead of deciding to avoid replying to my full response AGAIN!!! I ask you to answer these questions. Do you understand the fundamental logic of relying on experts in matters that you yourself have no real knowledge, expertise or relevant skills and if so how do you reject the opinion of the exerts in a field as complex as climate science.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #189 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:44pm

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?

I already answered this point but of course you chose to reply to a post I wrote to someone else instead of the post I wrote to you. So here's what I wrote to you. So why don't you answer that and then we can pick it up from there.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

I don't have the skills or knowledge to usefully debate climate change with you and more importantly you don't have the skills or knowledge to disprove climate change (or more particularly, in your case, the projected catastrophic effects of climate change) in the face of what the overwhelming majority of expert climate scientists are telling us. So I do what any rational human being in the 21st century does. I accept what the experts tell me esp when (i) the consensus is as overwhelming as it is in the climate change debate and (ii) the stakes are as high as they are in the climate change debate. That's why I don't believe that you are genuine in your denial of climate change. Clearly you can have misgivings about what the experts are telling you. But to be so forthright and ardent about your position when you couldn't even possibly know where to begin to properly assess the evidence, tells me that there are other things at play here then what the truth of the matter might be. Esp when you insist like a school boy denied his favorite toy that "There is no evidence" when literally tons of evidence has been produced and continues to be produced in support of climate change; esp when you insist that "there is no consensus" when the consensus has remained overwhelming for almost a decade now; esp when you insist that "they must be lying for the funding" with no evidence to back that up beyond conjecture; and esp when you rely for your information and arguments on internet sites sponsored by fossil fuel industry that has much to lose if the world breaks its dependence on fossil fuels. Question the motives of the fossil fuel industry? Oh no you can't do that but how quick you are to accept that the expert scientists have conspired to dupe you for a relative pittance in extra funding. "Oh yeah that's the reason, that's why they're telling us all this BS, its for the funding". If I accept that you are a rational human being and I do then your approach to this issue leads me to the conclusion that you are not being truthful about what you really believe about climate change.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #190 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:45pm

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?

I already answered this point but of course you chose to reply to a post I wrote to someone else instead of the post I wrote to you. So here's what I wrote to you. So why don't you answer that and then we can pick it up from there.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

I don't have the skills or knowledge to usefully debate climate change with you and more importantly you don't have the skills or knowledge to disprove climate change (or more particularly, in your case, the projected catastrophic effects of climate change) in the face of what the overwhelming majority of expert climate scientists are telling us. So I do what any rational human being in the 21st century does. I accept what the experts tell me esp when (i) the consensus is as overwhelming as it is in the climate change debate and (ii) the stakes are as high as they are in the climate change debate. That's why I don't believe that you are genuine in your denial of climate change. Clearly you can have misgivings about what the experts are telling you. But to be so forthright and ardent about your position when you couldn't even possibly know where to begin to properly assess the evidence, tells me that there are other things at play here then what the truth of the matter might be. Esp when you insist like a school boy denied his favorite toy that "There is no evidence" when literally tons of evidence has been produced and continues to be produced in support of climate change; esp when you insist that "there is no consensus" when the consensus has remained overwhelming for almost a decade now; esp when you insist that "they must be lying for the funding" with no evidence to back that up beyond conjecture; and esp when you rely for your information and arguments on internet sites sponsored by fossil fuel industry that has much to lose if the world breaks its dependence on fossil fuels. Question the motives of the fossil fuel industry? Oh no you can't do that but how quick you are to accept that the expert scientists have conspired to dupe you for a relative pittance in extra funding. "Oh yeah that's the reason, that's why they're telling us all this BS, its for the funding". If I accept that you are a rational human being and I do then your approach to this issue leads me to the conclusion that you are not being truthful about what you really believe about climate change.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156299
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #191 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:04am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

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.

My answer is the same whether you want me to "prove" AGW or "explain how it is plausible". In both cases my answer is that this is a matter on which I defer to the experts. And this is clear from my response but of course you only chose to reproduce the first sentence of my response, which was a cheap trick typical of you. So now I reproduce my full response

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

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.

And so instead of deciding to avoid replying to my full response AGAIN!!! I ask you to answer these questions. Do you understand the fundamental logic of relying on experts in matters that you yourself have no real knowledge, expertise or relevant skills and if so how do you reject the opinion of the exerts in a field as complex as climate science.

"Please explain how AGW is actually plausible."

A simple request.

You seem to be struggling.

Another pathetic, brainwashed liar exposed.

Next ... !

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156299
Gender: male

Re: Hottest year on record
Reply #192 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:06am

Bam wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:47pm:

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?

Yes, it's the weather. Just a few data points contributing to the total.

It's just as wrong to point to a few hot days and assert "global warming" as it is to point to a few cold days and assert "not global warming".

Climate is measured from many data points, not just a few.

Define "many", and then explain how you came to that conclusion.

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 #193 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:19am
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 Offline Australian Politics Posts: 156299 Gender:	Re: Hottest year on record Reply #194 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:21am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:19am: http://www.dreamhost.com/dreamscape/files/2008/10/dude.jpg 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination. Agreed?
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged