Australian Politics Forum

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Groundhog Day Reply #15 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156208
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #16 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #17 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:25pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

So you concede that they're probably right*?

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156208
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #18 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

So you concede that they're probably right*?

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

No.

They might be right, they might be wrong.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 156208 Gender:	Re: Groundhog Day Reply #19 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm # wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm: lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm: The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming. Can you substantiate that assertion? Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #20 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

So you concede that they're probably right*?

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

No.

They might be right, they might be wrong.

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #21 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm:

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming.

Can you substantiate that assertion?

Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov

If that's a name, does one person an Academy make?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156208
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #22 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:40pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

So you concede that they're probably right*?

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

No.

They might be right, they might be wrong.

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such.

My answer was in fact a 'no'. I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time.

"Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct.

There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that. However, I'm not saying that it's likely.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156208
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #23 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm:

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming.

Can you substantiate that assertion?

Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov

If that's a name, does one person an Academy make?

You're not familiar with the work of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov?

In order to get a balanced view, you really should study the works of those who don't support the AGW theory as well as those who do.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #24 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

I think this guy has said he's a lawyer. My God. I don't know what kind of quackery he practices but I sure feel sorry for anyone he represents. Hasn't even got the brains to listen to expert evidence when he himself has no idea or qualifications on the subject. #, this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. Although there is a large number of them, the majority, including the majority in power are embarrassed by them but don't have the courage to buck the big $$$ that's financing denialism. That's why we need to take drastic measures ourselves. We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it. If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right. Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm. One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #25 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

I think this guy has said he's a lawyer. My God. I don't know what kind of quackery he practices but I sure feel sorry for anyone he represents. Hasn't even got the brains to listen to expert evidence when he himself has no idea or qualifications on the subject. #, this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. Although there is a large number of them, the majority, including the majority in power are embarrassed by them but don't have the courage to buck the big $$$ that's financing denialism. That's why we need to take drastic measures ourselves. We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it. If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right. Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm. One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156208
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #26 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:50pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

I think this guy has said he's a lawyer. My God. I don't know what kind of quackery he practices but I sure feel sorry for anyone he represents. Hasn't even got the brains to listen to expert evidence when he himself has no idea or qualifications on the subject. #, this guy is clearly not genuine IMO. He's got his motives but I don't believe its anything to do with what the truth might be. I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. Although there is a large number of them, the majority, including the majority in power are embarrassed by them but don't have the courage to buck the big $$$ that's financing denialism. That's why we need to take drastic measures ourselves. We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it. If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right. Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm. One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.

What I said was right: "it doesn't mean that they are correct" (but that doesn't mean I'm saying that they are incorrect).

Your failure to understand this basic fact says an awful lot about you, and exposes your ignorance when it comes to all things scientific.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156208
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #27 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:56pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:47pm:

We need to bypass them because whilst ever they keep us tied up like this they're achieving their objective and causing untold damage to the earth and and all life on it. If an army invaded Aust you would fight them right. Well these people are doing much worse and we need to do something to protect ourselves and our home rather then watch them slowly doing irreparable harm. One day, I expect they will be punished but ion the meantime we need to stop all this talk and press our govts to act.

I'm sceptical of the AGW theory.

Could you explain to me how that translates into me "doing irreparable harm"?

Thank you.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #28 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:07pm:

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

The Russian Academy of Sciences seems to disagree on CO2 as a cause of Global Warming.

Can you substantiate that assertion?

Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov

If that's a name, does one person an Academy make?

You're not familiar with the work of Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov?

If he exists, I'm sure you'll link appropriately.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

In order to get a balanced view, you really should study the works of those who don't support the AGW theory as well as those who do.

If you want a balanced view, you'll give more credence to the majority than the fringe.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #29 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:55pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:24pm:

Statistically insignificant.....total wankery

Indeed.

Some people just don't get it.

You still have nothing rational to say, greggerypeccary?

Of course I do.

The Earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Records dating back to 1880 are statistically insignificant.

If the Earth was only 6000 years old, as some people believe, you may have a point with this thread.

However, considering the age of our planet, those records have no significance.

I don't claim to know anything of climate science, but the vast majority of those who are best qualified in the field seem to disagree with you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

However, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

What are the probabilities? In the past, has the majority most often proven right* or wrong*.

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

High probability and historical precedents still doesn't make them correct.

So you concede that they're probably right*?

* Simplistic binary, to pander to the limitations of the Conservative mind.

No.

They might be right, they might be wrong.

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

It wasn't a 'yes', so you'd be foolish to take it as such.

My answer was in fact a 'no'. I've highlighted it for you, so you don't miss it this time.

"Probably" means "almost certainly", and I certainly don't think that they are "almost certainly" correct.

There's a chance they could be correct; I'm not denying that. However, I'm not saying that it's likely.

My interpretation is based on the inference that probability is clearly beyond you comprehension.

"They might be right, they might be wrong." You might like to contemplate the probability that they're unlikely to be either.

Back to top

IP Logged