# wrote on Jan 12
th, 2014 at 12:15pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12
th, 2014 at 10:52am:
...
There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.
...
The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems, and they're supported by every body of reputable scientists on the planet.
You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty. Your
demand for 100% certainty, however, does prove that you know even less than I. Your
absolute certainty gives further evidence of your ignorance.
# wrote on Jan 3
rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3
rd, 2014 at 5:14pm:
# wrote on Jan 3
rd, 2014 at 3:38pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3
rd, 2014 at 1:21pm:
# wrote on Jan 3
rd, 2014 at 12:59pm:
What are your qualifications, such that you can judge that they don't have the data for that level of confidence?
I'm not a gullible fool.
There's no evidence to support that assertion.
That's pretty rich coming from someone who actually believes that AGW is a scientific fact.
...
When did I ever say anything of the sort?
I accept the judgement of the vast majority of the best qualified. Judgement on which no organisation of reputable scientists disagrees. Does that mean that I believe it's " a scientific fact"? That's a product of a
Conservative's binary mindset.
It will probably be difficult for you to grasp, but I don't see the world in binaries (black/white; true/false; good/evil). Mine is a world of probabilities; nuance.
You're uncomfortable with the 95-100% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic. You demand 100%.
You need the binary. I'm quite comfortable with the probability. For me, 95-100% is not an unbearable level of uncertainty, as it evidently is for you
...
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12
th, 2014 at 1:33pm:
# wrote on Jan 12
th, 2014 at 12:15pm:
You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty.
Ah, no: it proves that there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.
...
It proves nothing, unless you believe that what I don't know can't be so. If you believe that, then the corollary is that all that can be so, I must know. The term for that is
omniscience.
Omniscience is characteristic of diety. You're saying that you believe I'm a god. Not a gig I'd normally take on, but OK. Bring on the offerings, lest I smite thee.
Apart from deifying me, greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. So what has greggerypeccary revealed about himself in terms of religion?
With pathological liars like greggerypeccary, truth lies less in what they say than in what they evade. On Christianity, greggerypeccary was
quick to deny. A
Judaic reference met with stony silence. From that I infer that greggerypeccary is Jewish, but probably below
Bar Mitzvah age (13 years). He
later said "Never been to a religious service of any kind by any religion in my life." Highly unlikely, but ties in with extreme youth (never a marriage ceremony, never a funeral). It also evinces psychosis (belief that the assertion is credible demonstrating loss of contact with reality).
Yet again, what greggerypeccary says reveals less than what he evades.
In the spirit of full disclosure (not to mention total irrelevance): I was born Methodist (long before they became part of the Uniting Church) after dabbling in Church of England and taking a brief look at Judaism, by the time I left High School I'd come to the conclusion that the whole God thing is a
Furphy.
Forum
Pages: 
Global warming is real? Tell the frozen US/UK! (Read 16451 times)
