Australian Politics Forum

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17612
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #30 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm

# wrote on 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.

That's what I don't understand about Greggery, he says they might be right they might be wrong but in that case he should call both sides idiots when it's obvious he tries to ridicule only one side, just sit it out on the fence. If I held his position, and I do, they could be wrong but data and probability tells me they probably right. If I held his view I would just sit on the side until I could discern the probability of them being correct/incorrect.

He says says that then seems to take a side and slang off the other. The anti-AGW people say some totally ridiculous things sometimes and he doesn't call them out on it. Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Back to top

IP Logged

Setanta Gold Member Offline \/ Peace man! Posts: 17612 Northern NSW Gender:	Re: Groundhog Day Reply #31 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:53pm flip
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156214
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #32 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm

# wrote on 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.

Interpretation isn't your strong point.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156214
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #33 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17612
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #34 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:56pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is an idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking, I know you have said the above many times which is why it baffles me a little.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156214
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #35 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is and idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking.

Certainly.

Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind.

They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong.

They are completely closed-minded.

One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact".

And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc.

If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too.

Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today. Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot".

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17612
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #36 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is and idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking.

Certainly.

Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind.

They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong.

They are completely closed-minded.

One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact".

And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc.

If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too.

Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today. Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot".

OK, I don't know that I'm that dogmatic.. But, but, what about the antis that say it's definitely not happening or those that say it may be but it's definitely not man? Is that not just as dogmatic?

edit: I can explain exactly what and how ocean acidification means and works, how CO2 traps heat etc. The antis most often have no clue yet they "know".

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:56pm by Setanta »

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156214
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #37 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:52pm

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

Could you address your style of posting as if anyone who takes the probability of it being correct is and idiot and those that oppose are never idiots? That's what I was in fact asking.

Certainly.

Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind.

They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong.

They are completely closed-minded.

One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact".

And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc.

If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too.

Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today. Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot".

OK, I don't know that I'm that dogmatic.. But, but, what about the antis that say it's definitely not happening or those that say it may be but it's definitely not man? Is that not just as dogmatic?

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17612
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #38 - Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 11:00pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

Certainly.

Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind.

They believe that AGW is the only explanation for climate change and they will not even entertain the thought that they may be wrong.

They are completely closed-minded.

One of these "idiots" in this forum actually maintains that "AGW is an undeniable scientific fact".

And of course, there are the cries of "the science is in", "no further need to debate", etc.

If any who "oppose" the AGW theory are saying that there is absolutely no chance that the theory could be correct, I'd consider them "idiots" too.

Climate change is a complex issue; nobody knows for sure what drives it today. Anyone who says they do, and excludes all other possibilities, is an "idiot".

OK, I don't know that I'm that dogmatic.. But, but, what about the antis that say it's definitely not happening or those that say it may be but it's definitely not man? Is that not just as dogmatic?

I'll watch posts a little more closely and see;) Cheers.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #39 - Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:00am

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

... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer. ...

On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional.

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

... 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. ...

Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies.

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

... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ...

Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #40 - Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:11am

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

...

That's what I don't understand about Greggery, he says they might be right they might be wrong but in that case he should call both sides idiots when it's obvious he tries to ridicule only one side, just sit it out on the fence. If I held his position, and I do, they could be wrong but data and probability tells me they probably right. If I held his view I would just sit on the side until I could discern the probability of them being correct/incorrect.

He says says that then seems to take a side and slang off the other. The anti-AGW people say some totally ridiculous things sometimes and he doesn't call them out on it. Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Sounds to me he has made up his mind. Perhaps he could clear this up for me.. Greg?

Certainly.

I've said this so many times in this forum that I've lost count.

However, I'll say it again for you: The AGW theory may be correct, and I could be wrong. I maintain an open mind on the subject.

As I've said before, it pays to think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. Anything he says can be pretty much relied on to be untrue, either in total or in effect.

He says he has an open mind, does greggerypeccary, but is his behaviour consistent with that assertion? If the assertion is intended to confuse (as lies are) is it effective?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #41 - Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:22am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

...
Those who subscribe to the AGW theory do not have an open mind.
...

What of those who don't claim to know enough to subscribe to anything and just accept the judgement of the best qualified? After all, you've admitted that you have no qualifications so why do you, in reality, deny the probability? Do you have a rational reason for, in reality, rejecting the judgement of the vast majority of the best qualified?

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #42 - Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:39am

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 9:00am:

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

... I think this guy has said he's a lawyer. ...

On the evidence, greggerypeccary isn't adult, let alone a qualified professional.

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

... 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. ...

Think of greggerypeccary as a pathological liar. With pathological liars, truth lies less in what they say than in what they avoid saying. Read between the lies.

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

... I really don't believe there's any point any longer trying to get these people to listen to reason. ...

Agreed; greggerypeccary has no value except, perhaps, as a study in denialist psychosis.

So #, 3 consecutive posts playing the man and not the ball. You are a disgrace.

Here's the rub, go ban yourself for at least 24hrs, or like in my case, make it 5 days and then say 'oh I don't know how that happenned.....'

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #43 - Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:00am

# wrote on 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.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:55pm:

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

Interpretation isn't your strong point.

The last line of my post illustrates a characteristic of greggerypeccary's psychosis that's become increasingly evident. In deleting it, greggerypeccary confirms his problem.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ...

Absolutely certain.
...

Objecting to the IPCC's 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is anthropogentic, 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?

... yes.

It seems greggerypeccary needs certainty. He can't handle nuance. Anything beyond simple binaries (yes/no, true/false) baffles him.

The line that greggerypeccary couldn't handle refers to the complexity of climate science and the improbability of anyone being totally "right" or totally "wrong" (although some denialists do seem to be having a good try at the latter). To me, the question is: who is likely to be most right? In my experience, that's usually the majority. Were it not so, would they still be the majority?

Pity greggerypeccary, for one so ill-equipped to comprehend its complexities, the universe must be a fearsome place.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 25^th, 2014 at 2:00pm by # »

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156214
Gender: male

Re: Groundhog Day
Reply #44 - Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:09am

# wrote on 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: