Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #390 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30pm Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm: So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa? the classic divert tactics Talk about, the pot calling the kettle black!
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137490
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #391 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:31pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Talk about, the pot calling the kettle black!

OK, talk about it.

How do sceptics divert?

I haven't seen any trying to bring Hitler or gravity into the debate (unlike the AGW alarmists).

So please, tell us about these divert tactics used by sceptics.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #392 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:51pm Still not a single scientific argument, greggery.
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 Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137490 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #393 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Still not a single scientific argument, greggery. That's correct: I'm not presenting an argument. I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis. Why don't you understand the difference?
Back to top	IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #394 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

What ice are you talking about?
And why do you think whatever this ice is is relevant?

THe majority of sea level rise that will impact on human societies in the coming years will be from thermal expansion. Not melting ice.

So all those images presented from alarmists about melting ice and rising sea levels as a result of it is now wrong?

I don't know Maqqa. What are "all these images" you are talking about?

Here is an image that shows you sea level rise due to thermal expansion:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-5-19.jpeg
Figure 5.19. Global sea level change due to thermal expansion for 1955 to 2003, based on Levitus et al. (2005a; black line) and Ishii et al. (2006; red line) for the 0 to 700 m layer, and based on Willis et al. (2004; green line) for the upper 750 m. The shaded area and the vertical red and green error bars represent the 90% confidence interval. The black and red curves denote the deviation from their 1961 to 1990 average, the shorter green curve the deviation from the average of the black curve for the period 1993 to 2003.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-3.html

So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture?

No. The melting glaciers are not now of the picture

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #395 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:57pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Yes, that's one of their methods I forgot to mention: diversion.

The AGW alarmists will use anything to promote their hypothesis: anything except science and the truth.

Tsk tsk

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Don't blame "alarmists" for your own ignorance.

The IPCC literature has always identified thermal expansion as the major cause of sea level rise in the immediate

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #396 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Talk about, the pot calling the kettle black!

OK, talk about it.

How do sceptics divert?

I haven't seen any trying to bring Hitler or gravity into the debate (unlike the AGW alarmists).

So please, tell us about these divert tactics used by sceptics.

Please answer Greggery.

Yes or No. Is AGW a scientific theory just like gravity is.

Yes or No. Are people who accept gravitational theory - "alarmists"?

I always answer your questions Greggery.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137490 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #397 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm: So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture? It all depends. The alarmists change their position on certain aspects of the debate (those who believe that there still is a debate) depending on whether it currently supports the AGW hypothesis or not.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137490
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #398 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:02pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Rabbit uses 'Hitler' and 'gravity' as a means to promote the AGW hypothesis.

I wouldn't be taking anything he says too seriously.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #399 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture?

It all depends.

Yes. It all depends if you are talking to someone who knows what they are talking about. Or a complete moron.

We both know which category you fit into - don't we Greggery.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

The alarmists change their position on certain aspects of the debate (those who believe that there still is a debate) depending on whether it currently supports the AGW hypothesis or not.

Which "alarmists" are you talking about Greggery?

The ones that think that physical bodies appear to attract each other with a force proportional to their masses?

Or have you dedcided to arbitrarily deride some other scientific theory?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #400 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:04pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on 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.

Rubbish. You don't even accept that El Niño events have a significant impact on temperatures. You don't have enough knowledge to assess whether the predictive models are a joke or not.

I facilitate courses on predictive modelling in the environmental sector. the validity (and value ) of predictive modesl is their ACCURACY.

Perhaps you should attend classes about not telling lies.

We are still waiting for you apologies LIAR

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #401 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:05pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

[
I facilitate courses on predictive modelling in the environmental sector. the validity (and value ) of predictive modesl is their ACCURACY. The first test done is to apply your model to previous time periods and assess how accurately that match what actually happened. Are you aware that climate models have spectacularly failed this test? ALL OF THEM. the other test is that their predictions are matched by future events.

climate models fail spectacularly in both directions. don't come at me with the El nino argument. that is spurious. if the model doesn't take that into account then it is flawed -possibly fatally. If the science is so primitive that it is beset by 'random and unpredictable events' then its models cannot and will not work. Climate isn't unpredictable if you know all the science and all the interactions perfectly. The less you know,, the less accurate your model will be. your model lives and thrives on the data it has available to it.

Climate models fail - badly. ergo, the predictions they make are not worth much. and since ACC relies on these predictions then what are we to make of the 'science'?

Why did you lie about the melting of glaciers.

Simple question.

Will we ever get an answer?

Liar.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #402 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

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

* Gravity is a theory; and

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

Is that right Greggery?

LOL This is priceless. Absolutely priceless. You're even funnier than that deathrides character.

I always thought you were a little bit ignorant on this subject, but this has destroyed any shred of credibility you may have had left.

First Hitler, and now the old "gravity" comparison.

Oh god, my sides are splitting from laughing so much.

Grin

Answer the question Greggery.

Do you understand that, just like AGW:

* Gravity is a theory; and

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

Just yes or no Greggery. I always answer your questions.

You won't be getting any further answers from me Bunny. Sorry old boy.

Haven't had one yet. So no difference there

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

Once you resorted to 'Hitler' and 'gravity' you revealed yourself as the troll you really are (or incredibly naive and stupid - you decide which one).

Good plan Greggery. Run away like a little girl when you cannot answer a question.

That will impress the chicks!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

From now on I won't be replying to any of your posts.

Good plan Greggery.
You big girls bouse.
Run away like a little girl - just because you are shown up to be a fool.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

I'm dealing with intelligent adults in the future, so I'm afraid that excludes you (and your friend deathrides).

Heh!! Like your mate Gold Medal!! You are welcome to him.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

'Hitler' and 'Gravity' LOL You wanted to be taken seriously, yet you failed so spectacularly.

Still waiting for an answer Greggery - why is gravity acceptable as a theory - but AGW is not.

Any answer?

Or is it still a matter of faith for you?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #403 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:13pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Rabbit uses 'Hitler' and 'gravity' as a means to promote the AGW hypothesis.

I wouldn't be taking anything he says too seriously.

Buy a dictionary.

Look up "theory"

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #404 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Still not a single scientific argument, greggery.

That's correct: I'm not presenting an argument.

I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis.

Why don't you understand the difference?

Because you do not understand what the word "hypothesis" means.

Back to top

IP Logged