Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137501
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #330 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

exactly. the prevailing and default position is logically that climate change and warming/cooling are all natural and NON-athropogenic. it is up to the proponents of the ACC hypothesis to prove their point, not the other way around. and to date, the proof has not been supplied and the evidence remains increasinly sparse.

Yep.

I'm not sure if the alarmists don't actually get it, or if they're just playing dumb.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #331 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:19pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

exactly. the prevailing and default position is logically that climate change and warming/cooling are all natural and NON-athropogenic. it is up to the proponents of the ACC hypothesis to prove their point, not the other way around. and to date, the proof has not been supplied and the evidence remains increasinly sparse.

Yep.

I'm not sure if the alarmists don't actually get it, or if they're just playing dumb.

LOL,

NUL

-HYPOTHESIS IS CENTRAL TO SCIENCE!

YOU'RE AN AMATUER BUDDY!! Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137501
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #332 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:27pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

exactly. the prevailing and default position is logically that climate change and warming/cooling are all natural and NON-athropogenic. it is up to the proponents of the ACC hypothesis to prove their point, not the other way around. and to date, the proof has not been supplied and the evidence remains increasinly sparse.

Yep.

I'm not sure if the alarmists don't actually get it, or if they're just playing dumb.

LOL,

NUL

-HYPOTHESIS IS CENTRAL TO SCIENCE!

Yes, but MOTR never mentioned null-hypothesis, did he now? Roll Eyes

Moreover, when did AGW alarmists start paying attention to science? Undecided

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #333 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:37pm The denialists don't believe their own arguments!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 137501 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #334 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:39pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:37pm: The denialists don't believe their own arguments!! MOTR never mentioned null-hypothesis, did he now?
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #335 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

The denialists don't believe their own arguments!!

MOTR never mentioned null-hypothesis, did he now?

Don't get angry! Crack is boring and you'll just have to accept it like everyone else! Friends go missing and it's really sad but we've all been thru the endless funerals....

9-11 happened and the bell of pointless consumption is tolling...

NO GOOD EVER CAME FROM THE WASTE OF RESOURCES!!

Shocked

SLEEP WELL CHILD HATER!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #336 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am: You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis. It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis That has certainly been done.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137501
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #337 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #338 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

I've already explained this to you. You obviously have no idea about science or what a hypothesis actually is.

I'm not presenting a counter position: there's no requirement for me to "produce an argument". I'm just presenting the truth.

You, however, can't handle the truth.

The truth being:

* AGW is a hypothesis; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

We have been at this point before, greggery. We don't have any argument on this point. I believe the AGW hypothesis is robust and virtually certain to be correct. It's the same position taken by the IPCC. I'd like to know why you believe it's not anthropogenic. I'd like to know why you are so adamant AGW is unlikely when the IPCC has found it to be 99% certain.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #339 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137501
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #340 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #341 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

You are not convinced Abbott is trying to reduce carbon emissions for a fit and proper reason??

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #342 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:15pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

part of debating is actually responding to comments and questions by the opponent. This is something you appear totally unaware of.

Ive now asked you umpteen times to respond to the emminent list of critics and you decline to do so.

A proper critical thinker - which you claim to be but never demonstrate - would ask the serious question as to why so many, so eminent and so qualified people express the opposite opinion. Now how about you actually answer the question with some actual thinking?

Dont ask - yet again - about their peer-reviewd papers. That gets old and a little pitiful. Seeing as these are actual professors of climatology, atmospheric physics and related disciplines, how about we stipulate that yes, they have published in these fields? fiar enough?

Now over to you...

A critical thinker is interested in the argument. Some of the "esteemed" people that make your list support their position with arguments I find weak or specious. Some of them have arguments that have gained very little traction amongst climate scientists. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through your list and individually find out the extent if their doubts or the reason for their doubts. Particularly when some of them use such flimsy arguments as CO2 is plant food. I'm more than happy to debate any specific argument you might want to make.

Meanwhile, how about you debate the specifics rather than pursuing these tedious red herrings.

I can only conclude that you don't have the wherewithal to debate the specifics. You seem to think I have misrepresented the position of the Met Office, yet you can't seem to tell me why.

I'll assume your willing to cede that my summation is an accurate representation of the Met Office's position.

Now, how about you list one of your eminent people, and if you cant refer me to a peer reviewed paper, how about you outline their argument against the AGW hypothesis.

so the argument of the climate hysteric essentially boils down to the character assasination of ANYONE who opposes the orthodoxy? It doesnt matter if they are an esteemed Professor of Climatology coz if they disagree with the consensus they can be ignored?????

The book that I challenged you to read (and which you didnt) points out quite clearly the academic failures and professional misbehaviour of many whom you accept as unimpeachable climate scientists. You wont even discuss them and presumably never will

So why would I go to the bother of finding one of the hundreds of anti-ACC reports? You would do what every good like hysteric does and attack the person first and then dismiss his work for any reasons you can find - including manufactured ones. Ive had my own published work dismissed by one person LITERALLY for the existence of a single typo in the text.

You did correctly quote the METs stated position. You did just what is expected of a non-thinking drone who reads the headlines and happily ignores the data which actually says the opposite. You arent a critical reasoner. You cut-and-paste and think it amounts to reasoned opinion.

So you agree that the next five years are expected to average temperatures comparable to 1998. Do you also accept that at the time 1998 was an extremely hot year relative to the temperatures of the 20th Century. The way I see it is that extremely hot years have now become the norm. If you were measuring the performance of a business you'd be extremely happy.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 137501 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #343 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:15pm MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02pm: I'd like to know why you are so adamant AGW is unlikely when the IPCC has found it to be 99% certain. Did you not see this?: "It may be correct, or it may be incorrect." There doesn't seem to be much bias in that statement.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 137501 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #344 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:17pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:14pm: You are not convinced Abbott is trying to reduce carbon emissions for a fit and proper reason?? LOL Now that was funny.
Back to top	IP Logged