Quote:

United Nations-backed climate-change science reports have largely passed their usefulness because they produce "unbelievably conservative" results and areas of uncertainty are wilfully distorted by corporate interests to avoid action on global warming, leading environmentalist David Suzuki says. Dr Suzuki, who is visiting Australia, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change generates important information but "the enormous pollution of the communications sphere has rendered it far less effective" than at its inception almost a quarter of a century ago. "The whole sector of public dialogue has been totally contaminated, deliberately, by the corporate sector," Dr Suzuki said. "The whole purpose is to sow confusion and doubt, and it's worked." The IPCC is due to release the first of three working group reports for its Fifth Assessment this week. Leaked draft reports indicate scientists have agreed with 95 per cent certainty - up from 90 per cent in 2007 - that humans are responsible for more than half of the warming in the atmosphere. Dr Suzuki said the IPCC's reliance on achieving consensus for each report meant the risks of increased extreme weather - from droughts to cyclones to bushfires for a country like Australia - are understated. "The way these reports are made with input from all sides, they tend to be unbelievably conservative because they don't want to be accused of extremism and exaggeration," he said. "I think that's unfortunate." UNSW's Professor Steve Sherwood, a contributing author to the latest IPCC report, said the UN process at least "gives a focal point for us to stop and talk about the science again". Professor Sherwood, an expert in how clouds may behave on a warming planet, said the number of scientists willing to volunteer for IPCC work was up 20 per cent from the previous Assessment Report in 2007, despite reports of attacks on some scientists in the past for taking part. "The idea that you can squash this by intimidating scientists - I think we've moved on from that idea," he said. Canadian model? Dr Suzuki, meanwhile, said the early moves by the Abbott government to shut down debate about climate change - such as by closing the Climate Commission last week - should be worrying signs. "We've done the same thing in Canada with a right-wing government (under Stephen Harper)," he said. Mr Harper is "determined to shut down research, muzzle scientists, vet scientific reports so that they all get funnelled through the prime minister's office before they are released." "This is the conservative agenda: shut down sources of credible information and then you run it on ideology," he said. "Certainly in the early stages of this new government, they seem hell-bent on following that agenda." The New York Times at the weekend blasted the Harper government for making it harder in recent years "for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists". "The government is doing all it can to monitor and restrict the flow of scientific information, especially concerning research into climate change, fisheries and anything to do with the Alberta tarsands," the Times editorial board said. Dr Suzuki, 77, said civil society had a responsibility to demand science be made public. Elders, in particular, had a role to play since they had paid for their lifetimes "with expensive lessons" that they should share. "I'm urging elders all over the world get the hell off the golf course, get off the couch, this is the most important time in your life," he said. "Damn it all, get out there and speak and tell the truth." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/tony-abbotts-climate-agenda-worrying-says-david-suzuki-20130923-2u9di.html#ixzz2fhhavIMP

Yes...but what does David Suzuki know when compared to Alan Jones?  :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KmbTWz-C58&sns=em

Leftist crank

you needed ANOTHER THREAD on this same lame topic?

Suzuki makes Michael Mann look like a sceptic.  The man is a loon.

Swagman wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Leftist crank

If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right.

what arrogant drivel.  What makes your non-thinking mind believe that only the left values the environment.  It is crap like that which makes us laugh even louder at your rantings. If you cant make your point without labelling people and putting them into convenient boxes then you discredit your own position.

But that is the problem you clowns have when your basic hypothesis has been shown to be nothing more than hysteria.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

you needed ANOTHER THREAD on this same lame topic? Suzuki makes Michael Mann look like a sceptic.  The man is a loon.

Ad hominem, longy.


Quote:

"We've done the same thing in Canada with a right-wing government (under Stephen Harper)," he said. Mr Harper is "determined to shut down research, muzzle scientists, vet scientific reports so that they all get funnelled through the prime minister's office before they are released." "This is the conservative agenda: shut down sources of credible information and then you run it on ideology," he said. "Certainly in the early stages of this new government, they seem hell-bent on following that agenda." The New York Times at the weekend blasted the Harper government for making it harder in recent years "for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists". "The government is doing all it can to monitor and restrict the flow of scientific information, especially concerning research into climate change, fisheries and anything to do with the Alberta tarsands," the Times editorial board said.

Is Abbott copying the Canadian model? Sure as he'll looks like it.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right.

Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right.

Since when do AGW sceptics not value the environment?

Swagman wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do.

So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-will-doom-future-generations-if-he-ditches-carbon-tax-20130917-2tx0j.html#ixzz2fCxCdTbI

adelcrow wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 6:49pm:

Yes...but what does David Suzuki know when compared to Alan Jones?  :D

Very little actually when you have listened to both.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie.

It's crap  :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. ... Since when do AGW sceptics not value the environment?

As I remember it, when put to the test, you failed miserably to establish that you're anything more than a denier of climate science; not a rational sceptic at all. Would you like to try again?

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:14pm: you needed ANOTHER THREAD on this same lame topic? Suzuki makes Michael Mann look like a sceptic.  The man is a loon. Ad hominem, longy. Quote: "We've done the same thing in Canada with a right-wing government (under Stephen Harper)," he said. Mr Harper is "determined to shut down research, muzzle scientists, vet scientific reports so that they all get funnelled through the prime minister's office before they are released." "This is the conservative agenda: shut down sources of credible information and then you run it on ideology," he said. "Certainly in the early stages of this new government, they seem hell-bent on following that agenda." The New York Times at the weekend blasted the Harper government for making it harder in recent years "for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists". "The government is doing all it can to monitor and restrict the flow of scientific information, especially concerning research into climate change, fisheries and anything to do with the Alberta tarsands," the Times editorial board said. Is Abbott copying the Canadian model? Sure as he'll looks like it.

I know the thought would never occur to an in-step goose-stepper like yourself, but perhaps Abbott has actual opinions and actual passions and beliefs.  You should perhaps consider the notion.

Swagman wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:43pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D

Which part is crap, swaggie.

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Since when do AGW sceptics not value the environment?

convenient sterotyping is indicative of a non-think mind.  Ironically MOTR claims to be an expert on critical thinking when clearly he doesn't even bother with the garden variety version of it.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie.

and stil nothing new or outside historical norms.  you've got nothing.  you are frothing at the mouth over a few tenths of a degree rise over 50 years in a biosphere than has seen 100 times that range in the past.

Swagman wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:43pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D

Which part is crap, swaggie.

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:52pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg

all of it.  it is still well within historical norms.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:18pm:

... Is Abbott copying the Canadian model? Sure as he'll looks like it.

In the Environment board, there's a topic on the Canadian model.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:55pm:

...  it is still well within historical norms.

Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:09pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D

Troll.

So be it.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:09pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D

The bloke told a lie.
He was called on it.
And he is to much of a coward to own up.

And you are defending this cowardly lying scum
How stupid are you?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:10pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D Troll. So be it.

Trolls make assertions which they can't substantiate. Link to where I've done any such thing.

Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:12pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D The bloke told a lie. He was called on it. And he is to much of a coward to own up. And you are defending this cowardly lying scum How stupid are you?

Shouldn't you be out sacrificing virgins, you wont stop climate change without a virgin sacrifice you know  ;D 

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D Troll. So be it. Trolls make assertions which they can't substantiate. Link to where I've done any such thing. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

Nice try, troll.

;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:12pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D The bloke told a lie. He was called on it. And he is to much of a coward to own up. And you are defending this cowardly lying scum How stupid are you? Shouldn't you be out sacrificing virgins, you wont stop climate change without a virgin sacrifice you know  ;D

Where does one find a virgin these days?

No, seriously ... where?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:17pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D Troll. So be it. Trolls make assertions which they can't substantiate. Link to where I've done any such thing. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Nice try, troll.

What, no substantiation? What are you again? Oh yeah; climate science denier and troll. All you need to do is substantiate.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:17pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D Troll. So be it. Trolls make assertions which they can't substantiate. Link to where I've done any such thing. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Nice try, troll. What, no substantiation? What are you again? Oh yeah; climate science denier and troll. All you need to do is substantiate.

Nice try, but too late.  You had your chance.

Back under your bridge now.

Says no name that gets all his "facts" from dikran marsupial and the rest of the hippy activists at unsceptical science  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:25pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:17pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:09pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: ...  it is still well within historical norms. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Aren't you ever interested in researching anything for yourself?, what do you do? just get the low down from unsceptical science and move on  ;D Troll. So be it. Trolls make assertions which they can't substantiate. Link to where I've done any such thing. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. Nice try, troll. What, no substantiation? What are you again? Oh yeah; climate science denier and troll. All you need to do is substantiate. Nice try, but too late.  You had your chance. Back under your bridge now.

Still no substantiation? Tsk, Tsk.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:27pm:

Says no name that gets all his "facts" from dikran marsupial and the rest of the hippy activists at unsceptical science  ;D

I get my information from credible sources, which I reveal. Given that you can't substantiate yours, it seems you make it up.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Still no substantiation? Tsk, Tsk.

What would you like me to substantiate?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:40pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: Still no substantiation? Tsk, Tsk. What would you like me to substantiate?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379926121/14#14

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:40pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: Still no substantiation? Tsk, Tsk. What would you like me to substantiate? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379926121/14#14

Try to be more specific, OK?

I am sceptical of AGW.

However, I acknowledge that the theory may indeed be correct.  So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory.  That's not to say I can't be convinced.

How about you?  Is there any chance at all that AGW is all crap?  Are you willing to consider that, or do you have a closed mind?

Mine is completely open.

Over to you ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 8:56pm:

... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ...

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial?

You didn't answer my question.

So, are you willing to accept that AGW might be crap (just the possibility)?

Simple yes or no?

Do you have a closed mind or an open one?

You've gone very quiet all of a sudden.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:04pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ...

Of course not. I regard it as trolling - an attempt to distract.

Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not.

White flag accepted.

A closed-minded sheep.  Just as we all suspected.

Didn't take long to expose you.

Who's next?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial?

Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:12pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not. White flag accepted. ...

Nice try.

Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not. I regard it as trolling - an attempt to distract.

A perfectly legitimate question.

Could your theory be wrong?

Why are you so frightened to answer such a simple question?

What do you have to hide?

Rider wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:13pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey

If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks?

The studies referenced on skepticalscience are the most credible available.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:19pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks?

Could the AGW theory be wrong?

Yes or no?

What are you running from?

All that matters is which policy can meet our carbon emission reductions most affectively at the cheapest cost.....Both major parties have the same commitment to reduce our emissions and what is required is a debate on the best way to meet this target.....


Quote:

The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol will commence on 1 January 2013 and end in 2020. Australia has agreed a Kyoto target to reduce its emissions in line with the bipartisan target of reducing emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/theres-a-hole-in-the-coalitions-climatechange-policy-20130819-2s6dd.html

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/9/23/policy-politics/direct-action-still-short-despite-revised-outlook

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/carbon-target-may-be-missed-abbott-20130902-2t16g.html

::) ::) ::)

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:19pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? The studies referenced on skepticalscience are the most credible available.

The quoted study is a meaningless and substantially debunked concoction of mistruths and fluffery. Look it up and get a life old timer.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? Yes or no? What are you running from?

Both major political parties agree AGW is real and action is required to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels.....People who dent AGW have no political support and are not supported by reputable organisations like NASA the CSIRO and IPCC who provide detailed analysis of their findings to support AGW.....All that matters is which policy will work!!!

::) ::) ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? ...

In principle, all things are possible. The question is one of probabilities. On balance, the majority is usually right. Studies referenced on skepticalscience are the most credible indicator of the consensus.

I take it you concede that you have no rational basis for your denial.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? ... In principle, all things are possible.

At last, we got there.

There is the very real possibility that AGW is not real.

Well done.

I knew you could do it.

Rider wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:36pm:

... The quoted study is a meaningless and substantially debunked concoction of mistruths and fluffery. ...

If so, then you'll have no difficulty substantiating your assertion.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? Yes or no? What are you running from? Both major political parties agree AGW is real and action is required to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels.....People who dent AGW have no political support and are not supported by reputable organisations like NASA the CSIRO and IPCC who provide detailed analysis of their findings to support AGW.....All that matters is which policy will work!!! ::) ::) ::)

I don't "dent" AGW.

Nor do I deny the possibility that the theory is correct.  I have an open mind.

I'm sceptical of the AGW theory though.

Understand?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:43pm:

... There is the very real possibility that AGW is not real. ...

The vast majority of the best qualified say that it's real. So what is the probability?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:43pm: ... There is the very real possibility that AGW is not real. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say that it's real. So what is the probability?

Stick to the scientific method, and you'll be taken a little more seriously.

Consensus is not part of the scientific method.

We're talking science here, not popular opinion.

Cheers.

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:45pm:

... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ...

What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? Yes or no? What are you running from? Both major political parties agree AGW is real and action is required to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels.....People who dent AGW have no political support and are not supported by reputable organisations like NASA the CSIRO and IPCC who provide detailed analysis of their findings to support AGW.....All that matters is which policy will work!!! ::) ::) ::) I don't "dent" AGW. Nor do I deny the possibility that the theory is correct.  I have an open mind. I'm sceptical of the AGW theory though. Understand?

What you believe is pretty much irrelevant in the context of Australia's carbon emissions and how we deal with them.....Tell me Greg, which policy do you support to reduce emissions and why???

:-? :-? :-?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism.

There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory.

I remain open minded though (unlike mindless sheep like yourself).

Next question.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:43pm: ... There is the very real possibility that AGW is not real. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say that it's real. So what is the probability? Stick to the scientific method, and you'll be taken a little more seriously. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ...

That strawman didn't work too well for Delingpole. You might like to rethink your tactics.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:43pm: ... There is the very real possibility that AGW is not real. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say that it's real. So what is the probability? Stick to the scientific method, and you'll be taken a little more seriously. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ... That strawman didn't work too well for Delingpole. You might like to rethink your tactics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=36Xu3SQcIE0

You're the one who brought up consensus, not me.

Nice try, little sheep.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:43pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:36pm: ... The quoted study is a meaningless and substantially debunked concoction of mistruths and fluffery. ... If so, then you'll have no difficulty substantiating your assertion.

I don't have to anything of the kind ya dill. The study if you can call it that, has been thoroughly pulled to pieces and none of the pieces fit back together again. You see, it can't be replicated nor does it stand to scrutiny, oh, and Cook won't release a major part of his methodology to allow further scrutiny.

On all levels this is totally unscientific. Unprofessional and it is dishonest. Oh, and you bore me and my nails need clipping.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:52pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism. ... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ...

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:52pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism. ... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it.

Consensus is not part of the scientific method.

This is science, not a popularity contest.

Nobody expects you to understand that though.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:56pm:

... You're the one who brought up consensus, not me. ...

So what is your rational basis for believing that you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified?

Rider wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:57pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:43pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:36pm: ... The quoted study is a meaningless and substantially debunked concoction of mistruths and fluffery. ... If so, then you'll have no difficulty substantiating your assertion. ... The study if you can call it that, has been thoroughly pulled to pieces and none of the pieces fit back together again. You see, it can't be replicated nor does it stand to scrutiny, oh, and Cook won't release a major part of his methodology to allow further scrutiny. ...

How does further assertion substantiate your earlier assertion?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:56pm: ... You're the one who brought up consensus, not me. ... So what is your ration basis for believing that you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified?

Now you're just making things up.

Closed-minded, and a liar.  Not a good combination old boy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:59pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:52pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism. ... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ...

Didn't work for Delingpole. Doesn't work for you.

What is your rational basis for denying the consensus of the vast majority of the best qualified?

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:59pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:52pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism. ... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ... Didn't work for Delingpole. Doesn't work for you. What is your rational basis for denying the consensus of the vast majority of the best qualified?

Too late old boy.

You've been exposed as a closed-minded liar.

Nothing you say from this point on can be taken seriously.

Better luck next time    ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:02pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 10:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:56pm: ... You're the one who brought up consensus, not me. ... So what is your ration basis for believing that you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified? Now you're just making things up. Closed-minded, and a liar.  Not a good combination old boy.

What am I supposed to have made up? The vast majority of the best qualified agree, yet you say there's insufficient evidence. What is that, but you saying you know better?

Clearly, you believe what you believe because it comforts you. No rational scepticism involved.

That or you're a troll.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:07pm:

... Nothing you say from this point on can be taken seriously. ...

Nice try at shutting the gate. That horse has bolted.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:09pm:

What am I supposed to have made up?

That I "know better".

I've never made that claim.  Ever.

It's just one of your lies.

Not a good look old boy.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 10:07pm: ... Nothing you say from this point on can be taken seriously. ... Nice try at shutting the gate. That horse has bolted.

Too late old boy, sorry.

You've been exposed as a liar.

Not much left to say except, goodnight.

That worrying huh, climate change zealots worry, well good but unfornately I dont support tony abbotts direct action plan either, its no secret im not much of a believer of the man made climate change argument, and so quite frankly I can say this david suzuki is just another climate change goose.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:59pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:52pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism. ... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. This is science, not a popularity contest. Nobody expects you to understand that though.

Yet you don't understand the science, greggery. So while the scientific community is virtually certain you gloat about knowing what a hypothesis is.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:12pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not. White flag accepted. ... Nice try. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll.

CONSENSUS is not evidence
CONSENSUS is not proof
CONSENSUS is opinion

ergo, consensus carries no weight in a question of science.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? Yes or no? What are you running from? Both major political parties agree AGW is real and action is required to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels.....People who dent AGW have no political support and are not supported by reputable organisations like NASA the CSIRO and IPCC who provide detailed analysis of their findings to support AGW.....All that matters is which policy will work!!! ::) ::) ::)

which part of that constitutes proof?  are you even aware that NASA had an internal bunfight on its hands over Dr Hansen's fraudulent use of NASA information?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:05pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:12pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not. White flag accepted. ... Nice try. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. CONSENSUS is not evidence CONSENSUS is not proof CONSENSUS is opinion ergo, consensus carries no weight in a question of science.

but consensus does give what they say more weight than anything you can come with.

# wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:43pm: ... There is the very real possibility that AGW is not real. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say that it's real. So what is the probability?

300 scientist lined up and wrote a book about Einstein debunking his theories.  it was one against 300.

Wanna take a punt as to who was right?

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:59pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:52pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:45pm: ... I'm sceptical of the AGW theory ... What is the rational basis of your scepticism? If you are a true sceptic, then you'll have no problem substantiating your scepticism. ... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. This is science, not a popularity contest. Nobody expects you to understand that though. Yet you don't understand the science, greggery. So while the scientific community is virtually certain you gloat about knowing what a hypothesis is.

as long as you exclude the growing shouts of alarm from scientists about the ACC hysteria.  But of course...  as soon as someone debunks ACC you immediately dismiss them as a climate scientist therefore being able to maintain your 97% fallacy.

before long there will be 5 scientist left who believe in ACC and you will still claim 100% consensus.

you are a fool who refuses to even acknowledge the existence of other research.

John Smith wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:05pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:12pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not. White flag accepted. ... Nice try. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. CONSENSUS is not evidence CONSENSUS is not proof CONSENSUS is opinion ergo, consensus carries no weight in a question of science. but consensus does give what they say more weight than anything you can come with.

The tale The Emperors New Clothes was written just for simpletons like you.

I've given up with climate change believers. As Andrew Bolt and Dennis Jensen were saying on the Bolt report yesterday, climate change believers take anything to be 'proof' of climate change, because of the cognitive dissonance involved in admitting that maybe they've been wrong all along. It's so hot, that's because of  global warming it's very cold, that's because of global warming, there are droughts, that's because of global warming, there are floodimg rains, that's because of global warming.

NO, that's because the climate and temperature change day to day, it's not because the earth is warming.

It's a shame that more in the Coalitiin don't stand up and admit that they don't believe in it, like dennis Jensen. I can tell you, there are many that don't, they just don't have the guts to say it in public.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:05pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:12pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:04pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? You didn't answer my question. ... Of course not. White flag accepted. ... Nice try. Substantiate or be forever known as a troll. CONSENSUS is not evidence CONSENSUS is not proof CONSENSUS is opinion ergo, consensus carries no weight in a question of science. but consensus does give what they say more weight than anything you can come with. The tale The Emperors New Clothes was written just for simpletons like you.

nope, the emperors new clothes was what happens when an official didn't want to hear the truth ... good analogy, describes Abbott to a T.

MOTR wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:23pm:

Yet you don't understand the science, greggery.

au contraire

I understand it all too well.

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:06pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? Yes or no? What are you running from? Both major political parties agree AGW is real and action is required to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels.....People who dent AGW have no political support and are not supported by reputable organisations like NASA the CSIRO and IPCC who provide detailed analysis of their findings to support AGW.....All that matters is which policy will work!!! ::) ::) ::) which part of that constitutes proof?  are you even aware that NASA had an internal bunfight on its hands over Dr Hansen's fraudulent use of NASA information?

Proof of what Longy......Tony Abbott has committed to the same targets as the ALP so what is your point.....Many organisations have been questioned over its actions but it does not condemn the whole organisation as corrupt does it.....Every Government in the world accepts AGW is real and action is required to curb our carbon emissions.....Why do you think you know more than the vast majority of people who have the responsibility to act on what they believe is real???

:-? :-? :-?

matty wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:15pm:

I've given up with climate change believers. As Andrew Bolt and Dennis Jensen were saying on the Bolt report yesterday, climate change believers take anything to be 'proof' of climate change, because of the cognitive dissonance involved in admitting that maybe they've been wrong all along. It's so hot, that's because of  global warming it's very cold, that's because of global warming, there are droughts, that's because of global warming, there are floodimg rains, that's because of global warming. NO, that's because the climate and temperature change day to day, it's not because the earth is warming. It's a shame that more in the Coalitiin don't stand up and admit that they don't believe in it, like dennis Jensen. I can tell you, there are many that don't, they just don't have the guts to say it in public.

What a load of crap.....Isolated weather events do not determine the extent of Global Warming as any idiot would know.....Temperatures are taken over the whole globe that clearly shows a warming trend that is attributed to human carbon emissions.....It is sceptics who use isolated weather events to deny the science of Global Warming as you have done above.....How can anyone believe Andrew Bolt or Dennis Jensen knows more than NASA and the CSIRO???

::) ::) ::)

Believe one who has proved it. Believe an expert.
Virgil (70 BC - 19 BC), Aeneid

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 11:06pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:19pm: Rider wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:13pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 8:56pm: ... So far, no credible or reliable evidence exists to support the theory. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Scepticism is a rational philosophy. What is the rational basis of your denial? Clearly your researching skills don't extend to google (give it a go, even old people can use it)...still hanging onto the 97% nonsense from Cooke...wake up and smell the roses old matey If I can google it, so can you. Why should I allow myself to be roped in by your time-wasting tricks? Could the AGW theory be wrong? Yes or no? What are you running from? Both major political parties agree AGW is real and action is required to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels.....People who dent AGW have no political support and are not supported by reputable organisations like NASA the CSIRO and IPCC who provide detailed analysis of their findings to support AGW.....All that matters is which policy will work!!! ::) ::) ::) which part of that constitutes proof?  are you even aware that NASA had an internal bunfight on its hands over Dr Hansen's fraudulent use of NASA information?

You'll also find this statement on the NASA website.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


Quote:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Quote:

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 American Geophysical Union "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5 American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences 
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research 
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation

Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia 
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters   
Society of Biology (UK)   
Society of Biology, UK
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America 
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

To not act on this advice is akin to criminal negligence.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:59pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ...

Is that rational? Is scientific method relevant in this context?

Scientific method is relevant to science. Clearly, neither of us is qualified in climate science. Nevertheless, you pretend to judge the science. Is that rational?

You speak of possibility. In principle, all things are possible. I rely on probability. We'll never know for certain until after the event, so how do we manage the risk? Experience shows that the majority is most reliable. The opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified is well established.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:52pm:

... I remain open minded ...

Your behaviour belies that assertion.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 10:11pm:

# wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: What am I supposed to have made up? That I "know better". I've never made that claim.  Ever. ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:52pm:

... There's not enough reliable, credible, or convincing evidence to support the AGW theory. ...

What is that, but you saying you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified?

The story so far:
- you have no rational basis for your denial of climate science, so you're less than a sceptic.
- you rely on assertions, which you evidently cannot substantiate. You are therefore less than a denier.

The conclusion is inescapable: greggerypeccary is trolling.

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:22am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:59pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ... Is that rational? Is scientific method relevant in this context? Scientific method is relevant to science. Clearly, neither of us is qualified in climate science. Nevertheless, you pretend to judge the science. Is that rational? You speak of possibility. In principle, all things are possible. I rely on probability. We'll never know for certain until after the event, so how do we manage the risk? Experience shows that the majority is most reliable. The opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified is well established.

You've summed up greggery's irrationality perfectly, #. He will have to wrestle with his conscience for years to come as he confronts the role he played in delaying action.

MOTR wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:31am:

... You've summed up greggery's irrationality perfectly, #. He will have to wrestle with his conscience for years to come as he confronts the role he played in delaying action.

He's a teenage troll. He has a teenager's appreciation of broader issues - that is, none (OK that's unfair to most teenagers, though not greggery, nor the ones who play chicken with trains). He's just having onanistic "fun".

Quote:

Tony's climate agenda worrying, says David Suzuki.

Is this the David Suzuki we're supposed to believe without question:


Quote:

David Suzuki Caught Lying About Corporate Donations http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 7:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg all of it.  it is still well within historical norms.

Longweekend is like Abbott -
he believes climate change caused by humans is crap.

He's just another ostrich who thinks we can put billions of tons
of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen.

salad in wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

Quote: Tony's climate agenda worrying, says David Suzuki. Is this the David Suzuki we're supposed to believe without question: [quote] David Suzuki Caught Lying About Corporate Donations http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/

[/quote]
No, we're not "supposed to believe without question" of anyone. Suzuki just happens to be one of the most credible commentators on the planet.

Linking to a site devoted to assassinating his character is getting desperate. Try finding something credible.

salad in wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

Quote: Tony's climate agenda worrying, says David Suzuki. Is this the David Suzuki we're supposed to believe without question: [quote] David Suzuki Caught Lying About Corporate Donations http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/

[/quote]

Yet on his web site he discloses all donations including those from Corporations.....A web site dedicated to criticising David Suzuki is hardly a credible source is it.....When you cannot defeat the argument discredit the messenger is something the right have become very adapt at doing!!!

::) ::) ::)

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/donate/about-our-donors/

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:22am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:59pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ... Is that rational? Is scientific method relevant in this context?

http://gifatron.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/RRnhhqW.gif


Now we know what we're dealing with.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:48am:

# wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 7:22am: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:59pm: # wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 9:58pm: ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise. Is your denial rational? You've certainly failed to substantiate it. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. ... Is that rational? Is scientific method relevant in this context? [waste of space gif removed] Now we know what we're dealing with.

Still nothing substantial, little troll?

Global warming alarmist John Cook ... published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."…

The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology .... found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “...It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“… What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

Global warming alarmist John Cook ...

And the source is?

Skeptical Science

Quote:

Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. ... After reading a 2007 speech by US Senator James Inhofe who claimed that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science to be an internet resource that examined the scientific support of the most common arguments against mainstream scientific opinion. The site currently maintains over 160 articles addressing the merit of common criticisms of the scientific consensus on global warming, such as the claim that solar activity (rather than greenhouse gases) is responsible for most 20th-century global warming. Each article, referred to as an "argument", first presents a quotation from a prominent figure who made a direct claim regarding global warming, then follows with a summary of "what the science says". Rather than fully qualifying each claim, the site focuses mainly on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring these examples into an overall rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers. Many articles have been translated into several languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth. Rather than active advertising or media relationships, Cook has focused on structuring the site primarily for optimization in search engine results. The home page of the site also features blog posts by a number of regular and guest contributors, which may be new rebuttals of a certain argument or simply the blogger's view on a relevant climate news item. Like the rebuttals, the blog entries tend to hold a consistent tone that the scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is generally accurate. ... Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world", and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge. Cook is trained as a solar physicist ... Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

[i]Global warming alarmist  ...

It gives them a feeling of superiority.

They ignore science and rely on fear and misinformation.

Sound familiar?

Double post. If anyone knows what if anything I'm doing wrong to keep getting these double posts I would appreciate your advice.  Regards

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:22am: [i]Global warming alarmist  ... It gives them a feeling of superiority. They ignore science and rely on fear and misinformation. Sound familiar?

So NASA and the CSIRO are not scientific organisations in your very limited opinion.....Tell me where do you get your information from Greg???

:-? :-? :-?

If someone came to you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. If there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently spreads false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

... On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets.

I prefer improper, exceedingly painful and prolonged, action. By that stage, I doubt there'll be any law to worry about.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:22am: [i]Global warming alarmist  ... It gives them a feeling of superiority. ...

Still nothing of substance, young troll?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets.

What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!!

::) ::) ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:22am: [i]Global warming alarmist  ... It gives them a feeling of superiority. They ignore science and rely on fear and misinformation. Sound familiar?

Yes it does, it reminds of when you ignore reports from the dept. of immigration and make your own crap up instead  ;D

Much to worry about with all this Climate Change obsession.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430116/Met-Office-global-warming-figures-fatally-flawed-result-millions-squandered.html

Seems to me that the new Flannery run and hastily formed "Climate Council", now thank god NOT funded by the tax payer, has a lot of question marks about its credibility.

"Council"......gives the impression of being government approved and funded which it is not. Strange that this is allowed.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:45am: If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets. What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!! ::) ::) ::)

You do realise abbott only runs Australia, a country that produces less than 2% of global emmisions. If we did nothing, nothing would change, if we did everything, nothing would change; we are irrelevant.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

You do realise abbott only runs Australia, a country that produces less than 2% of global emmisions. If we did nothing, nothing would change, if we did everything, nothing would change; we are irrelevant.

You do realise that we made up even less than 2% of forces committed to both Gulf wars & Afghanistan.
If we didn't go nothing would have changed, we are irreverent.

What a pity more don't think as you Big, thinking like that could free us from all sorts of obligations.

Hey why stop at countries why not go that theory as individuals.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:03am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg all of it.  it is still well within historical norms. Longweekend is like Abbott - he believes climate change caused by humans is crap. He's just another ostrich who thinks we can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen.

Doesn't anyone agree with me?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 8:03am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg all of it.  it is still well within historical norms. Longweekend is like Abbott - he believes climate change caused by humans is crap. He's just another ostrich who thinks we can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen. Doesn't anyone agree with me?

no

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

Doesn't anyone agree with me?

Are you lonely, Boobie?

Is Nail away again?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 11:52am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 8:03am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg all of it.  it is still well within historical norms. Longweekend is like Abbott - he believes climate change caused by humans is crap. He's just another ostrich who thinks we can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen. Doesn't anyone agree with me? no

Yes, actually. Thing is, we're fighting other battles. Illegitimi nil deperandum carborundum, bobby.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 11:52am: Doesn't anyone agree with me? Are you lonely, Boobie? Is Nail away again?

must be.  maybe he is off getting the wedding dress for booby.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:54am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:45am: If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets. What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!! ::) ::) ::) You do realise abbott only runs Australia, a country that produces less than 2% of global emmisions. If we did nothing, nothing would change, if we did everything, nothing would change; we are irrelevant.

and per head of population we also produce the greatest emissions :(

your argument is brain dead because the planet doesn't give a flying bugger about countries and borders.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 10:57am: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:54am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:45am: If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets. What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!! ::) ::) ::) You do realise abbott only runs Australia, a country that produces less than 2% of global emmisions. If we did nothing, nothing would change, if we did everything, nothing would change; we are irrelevant. and per head of population we also produce the greatest emissions :( your argument is brain dead because the planet doesn't give a flying bugger about countries and borders.

it doesn't care about pro-rata emissions either.

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 12:05pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 11:52am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 8:03am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg all of it.  it is still well within historical norms. Longweekend is like Abbott - he believes climate change caused by humans is crap. He's just another ostrich who thinks we can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen. Doesn't anyone agree with me? no Yes, actually. Thing is, we're fighting other battles. Illegitimi nil deperandum carborundum, bobby.

Well idiots like Longweekend do get to me.

As if you can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our
atmosphere & nothing will happen.
He says he has a BSc so he must be a liar.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

# wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 12:16pm: ... Thing is, we're fighting other battles. Illegitimi nil deperandum carborundum, bobby. Well idiots like Longweekend do get to me. As if you can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen. He says he has a BSc so he must be a liar.

On the evidence of his ignorance, I'd say he failed to complete High School.

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 12:25pm: # wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 12:16pm: ... Thing is, we're fighting other battles. Illegitimi nil deperandum carborundum, bobby. Well idiots like Longweekend do get to me. As if you can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen. He says he has a BSc so he must be a liar. On the evidence of his ignorance, I'd say he failed to complete High School.

Yes I would say he just passed year 11.

pitiful...

you really don't cope well with contrary opinions, do you?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

pitiful... you really don't cope well with contrary opinions, do you?

Longy,
You need to start a coal fire inside your garage & tell us that
the coal smoke didn't do anything as you come running out coughing.

You really are a simpleton.

Double post

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:45am: If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets. What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!! ::) ::) ::)

I can't make you out Phil.  Perhaps you need to read the post more carefully or clarify why you think its crap to say that people should not ignore the science experts and instead rely on their own infantile amateur deductions re the truth about global warming and that it is irresponsible or deliberately criminal for people who have no training in the field to go around misinforming the public about the truth about global warming.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:54am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:45am: If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets. What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!! ::) ::) ::) I can't make you out Phil.  Perhaps you need to read the post more carefully or clarify why you think its crap to say that people should not ignore the science experts and instead rely on their own infantile amateur deductions re the truth about global warming and that it is irresponsible or deliberately criminal for people who have no training in the field to go around misinforming the public about the truth about global warming.

you mean like the palaeontologist Flannery or the other bozo (economist) here in Oz or the Train driver from the IPCC??

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:54am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:45am: If someone came you with a bridge design and said I want to build this bridge but all the architects and engineers  are telling me it will collapse if I build it. Now I know your not an architect/engineer, says the guy but why don't you go do some Google research on building bridges and later if you tell to build it I will. Now no matter how much research you did who would be so dumb as to tell that guy to go ahead and build that bridge anyway.  And if people died as a consequence who would say that person doesn't deserve to go to prison. I there was ever a case for the "crime against humanity" its this where someone knowingly or negligently discriminates false or misleading information about global warming in order to misinform the public into taking no effective action to combat it. On day when the pending disaster is obvious to all I sincerely hope proper legal action is taken to punish those people severely. And its worth remembering that the internet never forgets. What a load of crap.....Taking action to reduce carbon emissions will have very little negative impact but it will drive investment in alternative energy and better use of our limited resources....Taking no action to reduce Carbon Emissions will have a negative impact on economies and future energy supplies that will reach a crisis point this century.....Doing nothing will ensure any negative impacts of Global Warming will be far worse than if action was taken now.....Of course we could just ignore every scientific organisation that advocates action on Climate Change and rely on faith to solve all our problems!!! ::) ::) ::) You do realise abbott only runs Australia, a country that produces less than 2% of global emmisions. If we did nothing, nothing would change, if we did everything, nothing would change; we are irrelevant.

So typical of the liberals. Always expect someone else to carry them and make the sacrifices while they get the biggest share of the cake.  We live in one of the wealthiest counties on earth but you expect someone working on $2 a day to make the sacrifice but not you.  If you don't do you share they'll argue that they shouldn't do their share.  For once in you life do your share.  No more free rides for anyone, do your share.

Double post

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 8:03am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:55pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:43pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:15pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 7:11pm: Leftist crank If valuing the environment makes you a leftist, what sort of crazy people identify with the right. Leftists don't have a mortgage on environmental issues....they just think they do. So what's your thoughts on the acidification of our oceans, swaggie. It's crap  :D Which part is crap, swaggie. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/hitimeseries2.jpg all of it.  it is still well within historical norms. Longweekend is like Abbott - he believes climate change caused by humans is crap. He's just another ostrich who thinks we can put billions of tons of stinking coal into our atmosphere & nothing will happen. Doesn't anyone agree with me?

I agree with you Bobby. Longy would never dream of saying anything against the dear leader. Longy loves Abbott because Abbotts  a christian.  Which means anything Abbott says is gospel to longy.