# wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:


If only the "qualified" are entitled to comment  or have an opinion on such matters because on your reasoning others incapable of understanding and you yourself fall into that category then, in your own opinion, as far as science goes you don't know shy it from caviar. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:


Fixed. I'm sure you won't mind denying that the Earth orbits around the Sun (not the exact centre of the sun). After all, it's another hypothesis theory that we can demonstrate with roughly similar certainty.

It's only 99% certain!  That's in the same range as AGW (95-99%).

Let's add a few more:

Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of fatal lung cancer.
Dioxins are poisonous.
As an average (say) 90kg man, if you eat 2.4kg of sugar as a single dose within say 15 minutes, you will die. (would you risk that?) *(Actually, see the footnote)

Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, we are 99 percent certain that carbon dioxide traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

What brings it down to "95-99%",  is short term natural variation.

* By the way, if you are 90kg and would be happy to consume 2.4kg of sugar, then your chance of dying as a result of that is only 50%.  Would you do it knowing that? What if you were offered $1 million. Would you do it now? a 50% chance of collecting your winnings is much better that a 1-5 % chance isn't it?   What if we increased it to the LD95 concentration - around 4.8kg ? No?

Why not? It's not 100% certain that you will die. There is still a 5% chance that you will survive. And of course, we all know about the worldwide conspiracy of toxicologists. They are scientists after all. Maybe it's more than a 5% chance.

- and then you can find studies that the average Australian consumes 41kg of sugar every year.  At least some of them must eat 2.4kg in a single hit (and survive).

In truth it's all sugary-toxicist propaganda. Sugar provides energy. What would happen if we had zero blood sugar? We'd die, wouldn't we?

- and sugar is all natural. It's nonsense to say that it's dangerous.

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:



You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible.

Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman.

Seriously, do you actually believe the crap that you type in this forum?

Finally, Greggy doesn't like questions along the lines of, "How do you measure a complex system!"

This would lead to questions about the disintegration of system which Greggy cannot allow as he reckons the status quo can't be improved even tho that goes against the whole principle of manufacturing and thus the world we all live in, planet accountants included!

Keep it dark say all the crims of this world.... Infantacide and paedophilia all refer to the same thing: the lie cannot live and thus revolution becomes a word!

Tom Hanks was on Dave Letterman the other day saying there was only one theme!! ...

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

Greggy won't entertain systems of measurement as it means improvement of said systems becomes an issue and he can't admit improvement of anything can be realised

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:



When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot.

Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:



Excellent comeback.  No, really.