Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #345 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm

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.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #346 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:21pm

greggerypeccary wrote on 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.

Lol, you must be a blast on the crack man!

yeh, let's all get stoned on crack with greg and STARE AT EACH OTHER FOR DAYS PLAYING THE SAME RECORD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND ....!

Grin

NO WONDER SMOKING CRACK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH SUICIDE!!

Roll Eyes

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

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #347 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

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.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

Didn't you see the movie?

The basis for their proof is the movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #348 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm

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.

I know that. I was asking you to outline how you came to this conclusion. As far as I can make out you seem to be arguing tht because their are natural drivers of climate it's unlikely to be anthropogenic. Which only makes sense if you believe that CO2 is not a significant driver.

What's so difficult about outlining your major concerns.

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

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #349 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

MOTR wrote on 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.

has itr ever occured to you that the IPCC position is wrong? has it ever occured to yu that they act as gate-keepers to alternative opinions and research? if ACC were right then its predictions would be right or at least close. INstead, they fail miserably and we get the embarrassing nonse of IPCC saying that their temperature predictions were spot on - if you take out the natural variability and things they didnt know about. what exactly is that pitiful response?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #350 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm LOL, OR HOW 'BOUT GETTING BLASTED ON THE CRACK WITH GOLD MEDAL?? YEH MAN, WOW THAT WOULD BE SO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I COULD DO IT FOREVER!!
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

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137490
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #351 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

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.

I know that. I was asking you to outline how you came to this conclusion. As far as I can make out you seem to be arguing tht because their are natural drivers of climate it's unlikely to be anthropogenic. Which only makes sense if you believe that CO2 is not a significant driver.

What's so difficult about outlining your major concerns.

I'm concerned with just about every aspect of the AGW hypothesis.

Take your pick.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #352 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

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.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

Didn't you see the movie?

The basis for their proof is the movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

LOL, MAQQA WOULD BE SO COOL ON THE CRACK PICKING ARGUMENTS AND GETTING YOU TO FIGHT WITH ALL HIS/HER/ITS MATES!

Grin

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

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #353 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm

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?

Actually - AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis, in that it summarises a group of hypotheses that have been supported by various pieces of collected evidence.

But essentially you are correct:

* AGW is a theory; and

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

The same may be said of the theory that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses - ie gravity.

Tell us Greggery - do you go around calling people that accept that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses "alarmists"?

Do you live in a cave? I assume you must. You certainly could not trust the constuction of any modern engineered structure, since the the gravitation theory is central to structural engineering.

* Gravity is a theory; and

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

Is that right Greggery?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #354 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

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.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

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

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #355 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:29pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

has itr ever occured to you that the IPCC position is wrong? has it ever occured to yu that they act as gate-keepers to alternative opinions and research? if ACC were right then its predictions would be right or at least close. INstead, they fail miserably and we get the embarrassing nonse of IPCC saying that their temperature predictions were spot on - if you take out the natural variability and things they didnt know about. what exactly is that pitiful response?

Why is it that you are not able to construct any arguement with out telling lies?

Haven't you ever asked yourself why you need to tell lies regarding this subject?

You lied about glaciers receding.
You lied about undersea volcanos melting the arctic ice cap
You lied about the MWP being 4 degrees warmer globally than today.
You lied about the Doran 2009 survey when you claimed that only 79 scientists responded to it.
You lied about what the UK Met announced at the end of last year re their forecast for the next 5 years.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you need to continually tell lies to support your arguement - you are probably wrong?

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #356 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:30pm

MOTR wrote on 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.

they didnt refer to 1998. you did. why are you unable to debate my argument using the data I provided? does the maths elude you? Does the critical reasoning that would quickly deduce that they are saying temperature WILL NOT GO UP offend you so much that you ignore it?

teh temperature argument has always been about trend. the MET are syaing that temperature will not go up over the next 5 years. by any mathematical definition this means temperatures will not go up. there is no other interpretation - except yours.

MOTR, I am finding your debating style to be intrinsically dishonest. I am disappointed that it is impossible to debate with you to any value. If I make a point, you generally just deflect, pop in a grap[h (same ones of course) and talk about the IPCC (who are a joke in scientific circles). Getting youi to address an issue you dont like is simply not possible. When I mention the very large and growing numbers of scientists joining the sceptic position, you dismiss it as worthless yet claim consensus as a killer blow at other times. Your climate position remains nothing more that flag-waving hysteria.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #357 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:33pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

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.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

thats perhaps the stupidest resonse youve made yet. the physics of Climate isnt even understood and even now we are in the midst of radical changes in the understandong of the sun's effect on climate yet you presume to claim that the hypothesis has been proven.

the most fundamental proof of any hypothesis is the ability to replicate it or in this case to use it to build predictive models. they fail - miserably. their models are a joke.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #358 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

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.

I know that. I was asking you to outline how you came to this conclusion. As far as I can make out you seem to be arguing tht because their are natural drivers of climate it's unlikely to be anthropogenic. Which only makes sense if you believe that CO2 is not a significant driver.

What's so difficult about outlining your major concerns.

I'm concerned with just about every aspect of the AGW hypothesis.

Take your pick.

It would seem you really have nothing constructive to add to the debate, beyond stating that you have concerns with the AGW hypothesis.

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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #359 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:34pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

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?

Actually - AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis, in that it summarises a group of hypotheses that have been supported by various pieces of collected evidence.

But essentially you are correct:

* AGW is a theory; and

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

The same may be said of the theory that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses - ie gravity.

Tell us Greggery - do you go around calling people that accept that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses "alarmists"?

Do you live in a cave? I assume you must. You certainly could not trust the constuction of any modern engineered structure, since the the gravitation theory is central to structural engineering.

* Gravity is a theory; and

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

Is that right Greggery?

i MEAN, GREGGERY COULDN'T PACK A VERY BIG SNOW CONE OR THE PIPPAY ITSELF IF IT WERENT' FOR GRAVITY!

HE OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES IN THE VALIDITY OF GRAVITY BEING PROMOTED FROM THE ECHELON OF THEORY TO THE ECHELON OF LAW!!

WAIT, PERHAPS HE DOESN'T... Shocked

OH GREAT GREGGERY... WON'T YOU SPEAKETH ONCE YOU HAVE EXHALED THE POISONOUS TOKE FROM WITHIN..!??! Undecided

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