Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> AGW Denialist Church Collapses
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673

Message started by Chimp_Logic on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:54pm

Title: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:54pm
List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.

Now surely if the Denialist priests are claiming that the data sets are unreliable and inconclusive, and that there is a massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW, they should be able to point to who is on the other side (apart from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton of course)

GOOD LUCK WITH THE HOMEWORK


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm


Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Chimp_Logic on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:04pm
...amazing how the truth attracts liars to stick their heads out of the swamp

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Political Animal on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:05pm
Angry tard is angry.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:07pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:04pm:
...amazing how the truth attracts liars to stick their heads out of the swamp



It's a simple question.

Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Robert Paulson on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:13pm
AGW


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 13th, 2013 at 2:05pm

... wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:13pm:
AGW




I love your post, however, you run the risk of AGW disciples accusing you of "destroying your grandchildren's future".

Their cult is unforgiving.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 2:32pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

... wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:13pm:
AGW




I love your post, however, you run the risk of AGW disciples accusing you of "destroying your grandchildren's future".

Their cult is unforgiving.

Lol, that is why you are voting to waste money on boat anchor technology: yeh, dood, you're a genuine einstein!

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Jul 24th, 2013 at 2:14pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:54pm:
List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.

Now surely if the Denialist priests are claiming that the data sets are unreliable and inconclusive, and that there is a massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW, they should be able to point to who is on the other side (apart from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton of course)

GOOD LUCK WITH THE HOMEWORK


Well if you want to study chimps in west africa and approach the government for a grant you would be lucky to receive anything.

If you want to study chimps in west africa with respect to the effects of global warming then you would be assured something.

CSIRO come on down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You would be fool hardy not to......................... ;)

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:00pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm:
Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

Why do you think that it's not!

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:15am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm:
Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

Why do you think that it's not!


Science is not based on consensus, its based on facts!!!

I might add what consensus regarding AGW??????

There are scientists even today on the IPCC list that would rather not be there but have no other choice.

Should read up on the consensus of AGW.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:14pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:15am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm:
Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

Why do you think that it's not!


Science is not based on consensus, its based on facts!!!

I might add what consensus regarding AGW??????

There are scientists even today on the IPCC list that would rather not be there but have no other choice.

Should read up on the consensus of AGW.

To be more precise: the repeatability of fact- hence, the consensus of experimental result!

Statistics is used to determine whether strong or weak consensus exists or not!! Thus we get error values and the idea that all good science(like newspolls) haa an error value associated with it.

Nice try, Junior!!  ;) ;) Unfortunately I'm going to have to burden you with having to ask mean ol' baseball bat swinging daddykins for the cigar!!

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:25pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:15am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm:
Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

Why do you think that it's not!


Science is not based on consensus, its based on facts!!!

I might add what consensus regarding AGW??????

There are scientists even today on the IPCC list that would rather not be there but have no other choice.

Should read up on the consensus of AGW.

To be more precise: the repeatability of fact- hence, the consensus of experimental result!

Statistics is used to determine whether strong or weak consensus exists or not!! Thus we get error values and the idea that all good science(like newspolls) haa an error value associated with it.

Nice try, Junior!!  ;) ;) Unfortunately I'm going to have to burden you with having to ask mean ol' baseball bat swinging daddykins for the cigar!!


Dribble and malarkey at best.

Do you actually know how this consensus of AGW was formed.....????????????

Should look into it.......??????????????

Worse than climategate.....??????????????

How can you follow such PIGS.

Rather like following the orange people....???????

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:30pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 2:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

... wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 1:13pm:
AGW




I love your post, however, you run the risk of AGW disciples accusing you of "destroying your grandchildren's future".

Their cult is unforgiving.

Lol, that is why you are voting to waste money on boat anchor technology ...



What on earth are you talking about?

"voting" ?    :-/



Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 4:21pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:15am:
... what consensus regarding AGW??????

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).  Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

Several studies have confirmed that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 4:25pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:25pm:
...
Do you actually know how this consensus of AGW was formed.....????????????
...

Those who understand the subject best, substantially stopped arguing.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Rider on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:04pm

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:25pm:
...
Do you actually know how this consensus of AGW was formed.....????????????
...

Those who understand the subject best, substantially stopped arguing.


That would be a consensus on a consensus then....still has absolutely nothing to do with robust scientific methodology. But as long as it keeps you happy I guess I couldn't care less.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:09pm

Rider wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:25pm:
...
Do you actually know how this consensus of AGW was formed.....????????????
...

Those who understand the subject best, substantially stopped arguing.


That would be a consensus on a consensus then....still has absolutely nothing to do with robust scientific methodology. ...

Given that it's a consensus among scientists who are the best qualified in the field, your assertion is risible.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 4:21pm:
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.



Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:35pm
What consensus,,,,,,,there is no consensus....????

Its called a gravy train.........if you want money for your research just add global warming to whatever it is your studying.

Presto money in the bank..............

CSIRO come on down...................


Quote:
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

the rest here

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:43pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm:
...
Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

Which one?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm:
[i]“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. ...

Does finding out what the majority say constitute a vote?


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:48pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:35pm:
What consensus,,,,,,,there is no consensus....???
...

Denial ain't just dat river in Egypt.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:28pm
Responding to committed climate science deniers is futile. For anyone genuine who may be reading, common arguments of deniers are dealt with here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Rider on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:35pm

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:28pm:
Responding to committed climate science deniers is futile. For anyone genuine who may be reading, common arguments of deniers are dealt with here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.


Oh Lordy...........pull the other one it has bells  ;D ;D

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:41pm

Rider wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:35pm:
...
Oh Lordy...........pull the other one it has bells

Are you trolling?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 11th, 2013 at 12:21pm

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:28pm:
Responding to committed climate science deniers is futile. For anyone genuine who may be reading, common arguments of deniers are dealt with here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.


We all know about skeptical science blog.

They are to the global warming religion what the vatican is to catholics.

You gotta quote from a source that doesn't rely on faith.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 11th, 2013 at 12:32pm
I see that your faith in the unqualified Joanne Nova and Anthony Watts is strong.


Quite touching really.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 11th, 2013 at 12:47pm

muso wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 12:32pm:
I see that your faith in the unqualified Joanne Nova and Anthony Watts is strong.


Quite touching really.


At least they review both sides of the arguement with science rather than faith.

And dont call for the death of alarmists......??

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 12th, 2013 at 10:08am

Quote:
At least they review both sides of the arguement with science rather than faith.

And dont call for the death of alarmists......??


I have only visited the Skeptical Science site after being prompted by you. You obviously know more about it than I do.

So can you give me some examples of where they use faith?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind backing up your claim with evidence.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:59pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 7:28pm:
Responding to committed climate science deniers is futile. For anyone genuine who may be reading, common arguments of deniers are dealt with here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.


We all know about skeptical science blog.

They are to the global warming religion what the vatican is to catholics.

You gotta quote from a source that doesn't rely on faith.

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/skepticalscience.com
Your religion is in the  minority, it seems.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:04pm

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm:
...
Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:


Which one?



The Doran Survey.

Where the "97% of active climate scientists" nonsense originated.




Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:18pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm:
...
Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:


Which one?

The Doran Survey.

Where the "97% of active climate scientists" nonsense originated.

Is that the only study showing that the vast majority of the best qualified support the effective consensus?

Seeing as how you've stuck your head up again:

# wrote on Aug 10th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm:
...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?



Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm:
...
Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:


Which one?

The Doran Survey.

Where the "97% of active climate scientists" nonsense originated.

Is that the only study showing that the vast majority of the best qualified support the effective consensus?




It's the one where the "97% of active climate scientists" nonsense started.

It's also the one where one of the participants noted that:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

Another stated:

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

Yet another said:

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

But my favourite is still:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

Straight from one of the scientists.

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:44pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

# wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 8th, 2013 at 5:14pm:
...
Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:


Which one?

The Doran Survey.

Where the "97% of active climate scientists" nonsense originated.

Is that the only study showing that the vast majority of the best qualified support the effective consensus?

It's the one where the "97% of active climate scientists" nonsense started.
...

So not the only one?

Still waiting for a reply to:

# wrote on Aug 10th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm:
...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?


Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 12th, 2013 at 8:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
...
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  ...

The Cult of Climate Science Denial deemed it worth denying that there is a consensus. As a full member of that cult*, perhaps you can explain the significance of their denial.

The studies to which you object resulted directly from the denial of consensus. They are products of statistical analysis. Are you claiming that statistical analysis has no part in scientific method or that products of statistical analysis have no such part?



* Given that you've repeatedly failed to validate your denial, can you honestly claim to be a sceptic?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Rider on Aug 12th, 2013 at 8:58pm

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
...
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  ...

The Cult of Climate Science Denial deemed it worth denying that there is a consensus. As a full member of that cult*, perhaps you can explain the significance of their denial.

The studies to which you object resulted directly from the denial of consensus. They are products of statistical analysis. Are you claiming that statistical analysis has no part in scientific method or that products of statistical analysis have no such part?



* Given that you've repeatedly failed to validate your denial, can you honestly claim to be a sceptic?


Oh another one  ;D ;D ;D ;D. This too has been debunked and is simply another of Cooks fantasies. Do try to keep up.

How long before you drag up the dead polar bear......

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:13pm

Rider wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 8:58pm:
... This too has been debunked ...

Assertion does not evidence make.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Rider on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:18pm

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:13pm:

Rider wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 8:58pm:
... This too has been debunked ...

Assertion does not evidence make.


Whatever....at the end of the day all you have is a sad collection of polished turds. Pathetic.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Rider on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:34pm

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
...
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  ...

The Cult of Climate Science Denial deemed it worth denying that there is a consensus. As a full member of that cult*, perhaps you can explain the significance of their denial.

The studies to which you object resulted directly from the denial of consensus. They are products of statistical analysis. Are you claiming that statistical analysis has no part in scientific method or that products of statistical analysis have no such part?



* Given that you've repeatedly failed to validate your denial, can you honestly claim to be a sceptic?


Here's a peer review of your bs...hehehe love the new word of the day....."nonsensus" (I think I'll be using it more often  ::) )

Hulme slams 97% paper

DateJul 25, 2013 CategoryClimate: Hulme CategoryClimate: Sceptics


The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% "nonsensus" paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.


The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

This is an interesting development since nobody is going to finger Hulme as any kind of a sceptic.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 13th, 2013 at 7:12am
This is how the consensus started, and as any inteligent person can see, it has nothing to do with science.

The consensus of opinion was turned into some sort of dogma from the AGW religion.

How much have sea levels risen???

Dont glaciers melt and then form again????

Dosen't temperature have peaks and troughs???

Its all part of the Earth's natural cycle.....!!!!!!!!

Too bad the elite have managed to pass a tax on the air we breath, based on the LIE that is AGW.


Quote:
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

the rest here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 13th, 2013 at 8:34am

Ajax wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 7:12am:
This is how the consensus started, and as any inteligent person can see, it has nothing to do with science.
...

What scientists say has nothing to do with science? Perhaps you need to find an intelligent person to explain it to you. I'm certainly not going to waste my time.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 13th, 2013 at 8:42am

Rider wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:34pm:
...
Here's a peer review ...

Now that you mention it, if consensus is nonsense, none of the studies in which consensus is established would have survived peer review, would they? None have, have they?

One negative opinion does not peer review make.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 13th, 2013 at 9:21am

Ajax wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 7:12am:
...
The consensus of opinion was turned into some sort of dogma from the AGW religion.
...

Perhaps you should ask one of the priests of your Cult of Climate Science Denial why they put so much effort into denying that there is consensus. If consensus has no significance, why deny it?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 13th, 2013 at 9:44am

Rider wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:34pm:
...
Hulme slams 97% paper
...

Though you neglected to mention it, that's from: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/25/hulme-slams-97-paper.html. I'll give you this, you must have links to every Climate Science Denial blog in the world.

That's the blog of Andrew Montford, of whom Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Montford objects to a description of his work seeking to debunk climate science[4] but has a shaky grasp of objectivity at best

There's a good response at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html

Quote:
Response to Professor Hulme’s Comments

Before addressing this post, I would like to respond to some comments made by Professor Mike Hulme regarding a paper I co-authored, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was one of the topics discussed on Sunday Politics and in Pile’s post.  Professor Hulme said,

    “It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?”

With all due respect to Professor Hulme, his perception of the public understanding of climate science is not reflected in the polling data.  In fact, we discussed this in our paper (which is open access and free to download), http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    “…the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).”

Polling data for the UK show a similar level of public misperceptions on climate change.  For example, a 2012 Guardian/ICM poll found that only 57% of British voters accept that human-caused climate change is happening.  In an April 2013 YouGov poll, 39% of the UK population agreed that “the planet is becoming warmer as a result of human activity,” and 53% agreed “the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity.”  This public misperception on human-caused climate change and the associated scientific consensus was the reason we embarked on our study.  For this reason I would also respectfully disagree with Professor Hulme’s description of our paper as “irrelevant,”

    “The irrelevance is because none of the most contentious policy responses to climate change are resolved *even if* we accept that 97.1% of climate scientists believe that ‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW’…”

Again quoting from our paper,

    “An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012).”

Our co-author John Cook’s PhD research has similarly shown a strong correlation between public awareness of the scientific consensus and support for government climate policy across nearly the entire political spectrum.  Our paper is well suited for correcting the public’s misperception that humans are not causing global warming or that there is no scientific consensus on the subject, and hence it is a relevant and useful contribution.


For anyone who's genuinely interested, there's more at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Soren on Aug 13th, 2013 at 10:33pm
Your pissing into Sydney Harbour incontrovertibly changes it's pH balance.
The science is peer-reviewed and settled.





Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:25pm
Aha! You were conspicuous by your absence, but you do have the strangest analogies.

If you have an issue with your urine pH, I can recommend an excellent urologist.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:07pm

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

wow: I PREDICT GREGGERY HATES YOUR GUTS ABOUT NOW!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:11pm

Soren wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 10:33pm:
Your pissing into Sydney Harbour incontrovertibly changes it's pH balance.
The science is peer-reviewed and settled.

AND HERE IN LIES THE RUB(get ready folks for the SHEBANG_BANG!!): ..but would that change in afore-mentioned pH balance be measurable????

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:17pm
temperature measures what?

temperature is an indicator of HEAT CONTENT!

** ::) ::) but go on ya dumb liberal voters- pretend you don't understand the 5 stages of kubler-ross for another 40 years until its too late and we all have to go(chess's forcing move combination-wow  ::) ::) - slow moving theory to everything) nuclear but you're all in nursing homes too buggered to give  a rats... go on, you know you want to impress your baby boomer loser pretend hard bitten old school parents ghosts(like seriously, the church buggered everything  ::)  :-* :-*  :'(  :-?  ::)  :(  :D :D  :'( ) by leaving your kids kids kids a legacy of saddness and aloofness- or should that be aloofness and sadness  :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-* !!!

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:50pm

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.



Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Deathridesahorse on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.



Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.

greggery peccary is a chess player, lol!

What a hardcore  :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.



Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.


The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts. I'm happy to concentrate on the facts and leave the opinion to others .  On the sticky threads I have presented some of that factual evidence. If you take the trouble to read it through, the facts speak for themselves.   

I'm not going to respond to anything regarding carbon tax or emissions trading schemes.  What I do object to is the bastardisation of science for political ends.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:27pm
Greggery, so good to see you back. Have you come up with an answer to:

# wrote on Aug 10th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm:
...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?



Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

If you can't validate your denial, can you at least acknowledge that you're no sceptic?


greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.


Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.
...

If consensus is irrelevant, why does your Cult of Climate Science Denial put so much effort into denying that there is one?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:31pm:
Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method.  Tsk tsk.


Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.



Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.


The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.



On this, we agree.



Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:34am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 4:50pm:
...
Stick to the science, ...

So you deny that the consensus among scientist has anything to do with science? Do you have a rational basis for that denial?

By the way, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that you're a sceptic? I'm still waiting for a response to:

# wrote on Aug 10th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm:
...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?



Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.



On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts? Do you have a rational basis for that denial?

Do you still claim to be a sceptic?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.



On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?



Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:13pm
In your opinion, is this based on hard facts?


What about the absorption coefficient of Carbon dioxide at 10.6 microns? Is that a hard fact?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:16pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.


On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?


Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you deny that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists have any hard facts on which to base their conclusions. On what evidence is that based?

Bearing in mind that you claim to be a rational sceptic.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:37am

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.


On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?


Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you deny that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists have any hard facts on which to base their conclusions.



I'll type it slowly this time, so that you can keep up.

Read it very carefully, and resist the urge to change my words into something I didn't actually say.

Here you go:

AGW is not a "hard fact".


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:06am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:37am:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.


On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?


Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you deny that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists have any hard facts on which to base their conclusions.

...
AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you acknowledge, if only tacitly,  that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists base their conclusions on hard facts.

Despite your deceitful evasiveness, we're getting somewhere.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:10am

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:37am:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.


On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?


Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you deny that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists have any hard facts on which to base their conclusions.

...
AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you acknowledge, if only tacitly,  that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists base their conclusions on hard facts.

Despite your deceitful evasiveness, we're getting somewhere.



I acknowledge that AGW is not a "hard fact".

When you are able to do the same, you'll be taken seriously.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:27am
I think you're getting hung up on short term trends. Nobody ever said that there would be a steady increase from year to year. It doesn't work that way.  There are many issues involved. For example, if China stopped all industrial operations immediately, the main effect would be the reduction in aerosols.  Global temperatures would initially start to increase as a result, because aerosols, despite being pollutants, actually work against the effects of carbon dioxide. That is an example of a negative forcing.

The effect of the various forcings and feedbacks have been quantified and there is a lot of data available from the AURA satellite (for example) that improve our understandings of some of these effects.  Clouds can have both positive and negative forcings. I can explain this in more depth if you want.

You haven't answered my questions. I'm trying to find out which part you have an issue with.

If you understand that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, why do you take issue with the fact that more carbon dioxide will increase the greenhouse effect? (It isn't linear of course. That doesn't come as a revelation to anybody)

Is it a question of the source of that carbon dioxide? Do you think that the total emissions to atmosphere are overstated?

- or is it a question of climate sensitivity?

If you are open and honest, then surely you're prepared to have the validity of your conclusions tested.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:09am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:10am:

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:37am:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

# wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.


On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?


Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you deny that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists have any hard facts on which to base their conclusions.

...
AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you acknowledge, if only tacitly,  that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists base their conclusions on hard facts.

Despite your deceitful evasiveness, we're getting somewhere.



I acknowledge that AGW is not a "hard fact".
...

So now you deny that the consensus is based on fact? Do you still claim to be a sceptic?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:17am

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:09am:
So now you deny that the consensus is based on fact? Do you still claim to be a sceptic?



I acknowledge that AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still a sceptic, and you're still a cultist.

Life goes on.


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:36am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:
... AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still looking for the question, statement or implication in this thread to which that  is a rational response.


greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:17am:
...
I'm still a sceptic, ...

Yet, you've repeatedly failed to validate that claim:

# wrote on Aug 10th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm:
...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?



Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:44pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:54pm:
List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.

Now surely if the Denialist priests are claiming that the data sets are unreliable and inconclusive, and that there is a massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW, they should be able to point to who is on the other side (apart from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton of course)
...


greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm:
Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, ...

OK, so you tacitly acknowledge that there's no
Quote:
... massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW


greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:59pm:
... or even part of the scientific method?
Where did you pull that from? To what part of the opening post does it logically relate?

Most significantly, you've not been able to
Quote:
List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.
A genuine sceptic would have rational reasoning at the ready.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:51pm

Quote:
No massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW


That in itself should speak volumes. The term "Consensus' is usually reserved for opinion. What we're really talking about is overwhelming factual evidence.

If you were a climate scientist who thought that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion (despite the fact that the figures line up) then it would make abundant sense to publish papers on such a truly remarkable  epiphany. A newspaper comment or a blog entry really doesn't cut it. I'm sure they could get any number of billionaires to contribute to financing such research.



That's a thin red line there.

Don't call it consensus. Call it evidence. Overwhelming evidence.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:19pm

muso wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:51pm:
...
Don't call it consensus. Call it evidence. Overwhelming evidence.

"Consensus" first entered the argument when the climate science denial movement made a habit of denying that there is one. A number of studies have produced findings that displeased the deniers, so they now declare it irrelevant.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:31pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 7:12am:
This is how the consensus started, and as any inteligent person can see, it has nothing to do with science.
...


Quote:
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell
...

Of Larry Bell, Sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Bell says:

Quote:
... a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science[1], [2]. He is listed as author of a Jan. 2011 book titled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, published through the Greenleaf Book Group, a vanity press.

So no qualifications, just opinionated. Certainly no peer review.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:16pm

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 7:12am:
This is how the consensus started, and as any inteligent person can see, it has nothing to do with science.
...


Quote:
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell
...

Of Larry Bell, Sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Bell says:
[quote]... a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science[1], [2]. He is listed as author of a Jan. 2011 book titled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, published through the Greenleaf Book Group, a vanity press.

So no qualifications, just opinionated. Certainly no peer review.[/quote]

I think you'll find that the consensus is based on two questions posted over the internet.

Is science based on opinion???

Is science based on consensus???

Is science based on politics????

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:28pm
"Consensus" is a red herring. Factual evidence speaks for itself.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by Ajax on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:48pm

muso wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:28pm:
"Consensus" is a red herring. Factual evidence speaks for itself.


Correct I agree.

The oceans have not been warming, the 3000 buoys give us this factual information.

There is no hot spot in the tropopause, weather balloons and satellite data give us this factual information.

The oceans aren't rising, ocean experts give us this factual information.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375838504

Yes glaciers are melting because the forests and jungles at the foothill of those mountains have been turned into A4 paper.

Yes the North pole is melting but it has always done so, they had farming on Greenland not that long ago.

This is nothing new, has repeated itself in history many times.

The Antarctic is increasing....fact

Water vapour around the equator is normal.....fact.

Only computer models spit out the type of factual information that you and others constantly quote on here.

And frankly computer simulated models without real world verifications are nothing more than a hypothesis that cannot be proven.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:34pm

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:
... AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still looking for the question, statement or implication in this thread to which that  is a rational response.



You can stop looking:

"The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/52#52

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
On the sticky threads I have presented some of that factual evidence.



No, you've presented some of the evidence along with some opinions.

Not "factual" evidence.



Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:
... AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still looking for the question, statement or implication in this thread to which that  is a rational response.



You can stop looking:

"The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/52#52

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:35pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
On the sticky threads I have presented some of that factual evidence.



No, you've presented some of the evidence along with some opinions.

Not "factual" evidence.

Denial ain't just dat river in Egypt.  ;D

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:37pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
On the sticky threads I have presented some of that factual evidence.



No, you've presented some of the evidence along with some opinions.

Not "factual" evidence.

Denial ain't just dat river in Egypt.  ;D



Correct.  The AGW cultists keep denying that their evidence isn't "factual".

That's exactly why they are losing more and more credibility each day.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:38pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:23pm:
... AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still looking for the question, statement or implication in this thread to which that  is a rational response.



You can stop looking:

"The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/52#52

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



Ah, so now a website contains "hard facts"?

Keep trying.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:34pm:
...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


Ah, so now a website contains "hard facts"?

Keep trying.

So now you're saying that, because it's on a web site, it can't be hard fact?

Are you trolling?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:50pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:34pm:
...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


Ah, so now a website contains "hard facts"?

Keep trying.

So now you're saying that, because it's on a web site, it can't be hard fact?



Nope.

I'm saying that because it's on a web site, it isn't necessarily "hard fact".

See the difference?

That's another one of the problems with your religion (you don't like "cult", I know): you see something and immediately make an assumption based on your own bias, rather than taking the time to analyse the situation and consider it from all angles.


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:53pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:50pm:
...
I'm saying that because it's on a web site, it isn't necessarily "hard fact".
...

Point to anything on that site that isn't peer-reviewed science.

Of course, you'll have a climate science denier's perverse definition of "hard fact"; something that doesn't include science.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:50pm:
...
I'm saying that because it's on a web site, it isn't necessarily "hard fact".
...

Point to anything on that site that isn't peer-reviewed science.



See, you keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?


Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm:
...
Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?

Oh, I understand alright. A dedicated denier can deny anything.

As can a troll.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:05pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm:
...
Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?

Oh, I understand alright.



Good.

I knew hoped something would get through eventually.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:37pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm:
...
Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?

Oh, I understand alright.

...
I knew hoped something would get through eventually.

Oh, something got through alright.

You merely deny anything that's inconsistent with your beliefs. I see two possibilities.

If you're genuine, then you're insane. If you're not genuine, then you're trolling.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by muso on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

muso wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
On the sticky threads I have presented some of that factual evidence.



No, you've presented some of the evidence along with some opinions.

Not "factual" evidence.


A measurement of Longwave Infrared radiation from Space isn't factual?

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 6:35pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm:
...
Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?

Oh, I understand alright.

...
I knew hoped something would get through eventually.


Oh, something got through alright.



That's good.  At least we're getting somewhere.



Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 6:35pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm:
...
Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?

Oh, I understand alright.

...
I knew hoped something would get through eventually.


Oh, something got through alright.



That's good.  At least we're getting somewhere.

You do realise that your post is consistent with trolling.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:47pm

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 6:35pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:59pm:
...
Just because something is "peer-reviewed science", it doesn't mean that it's "hard fact".

Are you starting to understand yet?

Oh, I understand alright.

...
I knew hoped something would get through eventually.


Oh, something got through alright.



That's good.  At least we're getting somewhere.

You do realise that your post is consistent with trolling.



Nice move.

"I'm losing the argument and can't think of anything worthwhile to say, so I'll call him a troll".

Your church will be proud.

Title: Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Post by # on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:10pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:37pm:
...
You do realise that your post is consistent with trolling.


Nice move.

"I'm losing the argument and can't think of anything worthwhile to say, so I'll call him a troll".

Your church will be proud.

So far, you're all assertion and denial, with no substance. Smartarse comments only confirm that you're trolling.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.