Australian Politics Forum - Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #105 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:19pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Yes, like all science it is always possible there is an alternative explanation ...

Exactly.

However, when it comes to climate change, the cult members don't agree.

There are actually members on this forum who think that AGW is "an undeniable scientific fact".

Their words, not mine.

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

I haven't actually seen any believers in gravitational theory who want to bring massive societal and economic changes, because they think gravity is being changed by human action..

So...you accept or reject science arbitrarily, based on your own personal prejudices?

Did you learn that from Andrew Bolt?

Nope, I don't accept or reject science. I reject politicised environmental agendas using logic and scientific evidence.

And it's you lot that have the man-crush on Bolt, not me. I rarely
bother to read or listen to him.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156108
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #106 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:19pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

What happened to "The Theory of Gravity"?

You changed that post awfully quick Wink

Yes - it was badly worded. Now - can you answer the question?

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

Yes.

No.

They don't behave like cult members.

How does a "cult member" behave Greggery?

"Warning signs that someone you know may have been recruited into a Cult can include:

"Change from analytical to magical thinking.
"Family and friends preached to.
"Evasive, aggressive and defensive.
"Extremely sensitive to criticism."

Sound like anyone you know?

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #107 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:22pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Yes, like all science it is always possible there is an alternative explanation ...

Exactly.

However, when it comes to climate change, the cult members don't agree.

There are actually members on this forum who think that AGW is "an undeniable scientific fact".

Their words, not mine.

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

I haven't actually seen any believers in gravitational theory who want to bring massive societal and economic changes, because they think gravity is being changed by human action..

So...you accept or reject science arbitrarily, based on your own personal prejudices?

Did you learn that from Andrew Bolt?

Nope, I don't accept or reject science. I reject politicised environmental agendas using logic and scientific evidence.

And it's you lot that have the man-crush on Bolt, not me. I rarely
bother to read or listen to him.

No - you are rejecting science by prescribing to the silly conspiracy theories that surround the accepted science of AGW.

There is nothing political about AGW. It is happening. The overwhelming physical evidence confirms this.

Yet - you reject this overwhelming physical evidence.

Why?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21603
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #108 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:27pm

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:

The IPCC seems fairly confident in the models,

'The likely ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding. {11.3}'

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

So the level of certainty is lower than the 5%-95% model range. that is why they had an expert panel assessment. Less than 5% confidence? Doesn't sound good to me.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21603
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #109 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:30pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

There is nothing political about AGW.

AGW is a child of the IPCC- InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. What are governments if not political?

Between the Physics and reality on Climate Change is the shamanism of the ECS, that controls the debate.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #110 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:32pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Yes, like all science it is always possible there is an alternative explanation ...

Exactly.

However, when it comes to climate change, the cult members don't agree.

There are actually members on this forum who think that AGW is "an undeniable scientific fact".

Their words, not mine.

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

I haven't actually seen any believers in gravitational theory who want to bring massive societal and economic changes, because they think gravity is being changed by human action..

So...you accept or reject science arbitrarily, based on your own personal prejudices?

Did you learn that from Andrew Bolt?

Nope, I don't accept or reject science. I reject politicised environmental agendas using logic and scientific evidence.

And it's you lot that have the man-crush on Bolt, not me. I rarely
bother to read or listen to him.

No - you are rejecting science by prescribing to the silly conspiracy theories that surround the accepted science of AGW.

There is nothing political about AGW. It is happening. The overwhelming physical evidence confirms this.

Yet - you reject this overwhelming physical evidence.

Why?

EVERYTHING about AGW is political. Warming is happening, so there's no 'rejecting' required.
The reason ( or the main one at least) that I reject AGW is that it's never explained why THIS cycle of warming is different from all the previous ones that occurred long before man evolved or invented industrial processes.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156108
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #111 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:33pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

There is nothing political about AGW. It is happening.

Warning signs that someone you know may have been recruited into a Cult can include:

Change from analytical to magical thinking.
Family and friends preached to.
Evasive, aggressive and defensive.
Extremely sensitive to criticism.

http://www.cultavoidancesociety.org/Cult--8.html

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 156108
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #112 - May 27^th, 2014 at 6:38pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

What happened to "The Theory of Gravity"?

You changed that post awfully quick Wink

Yes - it was badly worded. Now - can you answer the question?

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

Yes.

No.

They don't behave like cult members.

How does a "cult member" behave Greggery?

Cults have impressive Websites designed to reassure doubters.
Cults seek Political approval with lobbying and Party and Campaign donations.
Cults attend Government hosted conferences to appear respectable.
Famous individuals are often targeted for Cult recruitment to give the group an air of glamour and excitement.

http://www.cultavoidancesociety.org/Cult--7.html

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3808	Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud Reply #113 - May 27^th, 2014 at 9:27pm Gregory is being the poor mans Karnal of climate change on here. stop feeding the troll. Hes probably roflol'ing right now
Back to top	IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #114 - May 27^th, 2014 at 10:38pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

I haven't actually seen any believers in gravitational theory who want to bring massive societal and economic changes, because they think gravity is being changed by human action..

Herein lies the rub. The veracity of evidence in favour of a theory isn't affected by the possible impact of responses.

This is why there is so much opposition to the idea, not because it's flawed.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #115 - May 27^th, 2014 at 10:47pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Yes, like all science it is always possible there is an alternative explanation ...

Exactly.

However, when it comes to climate change, the cult members don't agree.

There are actually members on this forum who think that AGW is "an undeniable scientific fact".

Their words, not mine.

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

I haven't actually seen any believers in gravitational theory who want to bring massive societal and economic changes, because they think gravity is being changed by human action..

So...you accept or reject science arbitrarily, based on your own personal prejudices?

Did you learn that from Andrew Bolt?

Nope, I don't accept or reject science. I reject politicised environmental agendas using logic and scientific evidence.

And it's you lot that have the man-crush on Bolt, not me. I rarely
bother to read or listen to him.

No - you are rejecting science by prescribing to the silly conspiracy theories that surround the accepted science of AGW.

There is nothing political about AGW. It is happening. The overwhelming physical evidence confirms this.

Yet - you reject this overwhelming physical evidence.

Why?

EVERYTHING about AGW is political.

No. It isn't.

There is a vast accumulation of scientific data supporting it. That you choose to deny it is your problem.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

Warming is happening, so there's no 'rejecting' required.

Yes. Warming is happening. Those who deny it are idiots.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

The reason ( or the main one at least) that I reject AGW is that it's never explained why THIS cycle of warming is different from all the previous ones that occurred long before man evolved or invented industrial processes.

I am sure it has been explained to you many times - but you just refuse to listen.

Put simply - many things cause the planet's climate to change - orbital variations, tectonic movement, volcanic emissions, solar variation etc etc etc

None of these drivers are responsible for the observed warming over recent decades. What has been measured however is a decrease in outgoing thermal energy in the same spectra that is absorbed by CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

And the planet is warming.

This really isn't that difficult to grasp, is it?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #116 - May 27^th, 2014 at 10:49pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

What happened to "The Theory of Gravity"?

You changed that post awfully quick Wink

Yes - it was badly worded. Now - can you answer the question?

Do you call people who accept the scientific evidence supporting gravitational theory "cult members" Greggery?

If not. Why not?

Yes.

No.

They don't behave like cult members.

How does a "cult member" behave Greggery?

Cults have impressive Websites designed to reassure doubters.
Cults seek Political approval with lobbying and Party and Campaign donations.
Cults attend Government hosted conferences to appear respectable.
Famous individuals are often targeted for Cult recruitment to give the group an air of glamour and excitement.

http://www.cultavoidancesociety.org/Cult--7.html

Are cults supported by decades of scientific evidence Greggery?

Why do you deny the existence of scientific evidence?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #117 - May 27^th, 2014 at 10:52pm

lee wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

There is nothing political about AGW.

AGW is a child of the IPCC- InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. What are governments if not political?

Between the Physics and reality on Climate Change is the shamanism of the ECS, that controls the debate.

AGW is the child of anthropogenic emissions. Your conspiracy theories are just silly.

The IPCC- InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change reports on scientific evidence. It does not conduct any research at all. It simply reports.

Take your tin-foil hat off. And stop listening to Andrew Bolt.

Back to top

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #118 - May 27^th, 2014 at 10:56pm

lee wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:

The IPCC seems fairly confident in the models,

'The likely ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding. {11.3}'

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

So the level of certainty is lower than the 5%-95% model range. that is why they had an expert panel assessment. Less than 5% confidence? Doesn't sound good to me.

The observations have thus far been falling within the projected range. Climate models don't really make predictions so much as they do projections, which are under these conditions, this is what will happen. They make many runs and basically average them, but in reality the climate is much more likely to follow a specific run rather than the average.

The 5-95 percent range covers different possible outcomes, with some being much more likely than others, it does not mean there is less than 5% certainty that AGW is occurring. It means there is less than 5% certainty for specific outcomes.

This goes into more detail about the accuracy of projections.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #119 - May 28^th, 2014 at 3:06am

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 10:56pm:

lee wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:

The IPCC seems fairly confident in the models,

'The likely ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the 5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding. {11.3}'

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

So the level of certainty is lower than the 5%-95% model range. that is why they had an expert panel assessment. Less than 5% confidence? Doesn't sound good to me.

The observations have thus far been falling within the projected range. Climate models don't really make predictions so much as they do projections, which are under these conditions, this is what will happen. They make many runs and basically average them, but in reality the climate is much more likely to follow a specific run rather than the average.

The 5-95 percent range covers different possible outcomes, with some being much more likely than others, it does not mean there is less than 5% certainty that AGW is occurring. It means there is less than 5% certainty for specific outcomes.

This goes into more detail about the accuracy of projections.

In other words, the IPCC as you just did, has money on every horse in the race.

Do you even realise that people can see what you just did lol

Back to top

IP Logged