greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Yes Greggery, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it.  we all know this.

Now please answer the questions:


You claimed AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, Greggery.

I am asking you to tell us what scientific principles were ignored.

Nobody has ever said that a consensus means that a theory or hypothesis is correct.  And the fact that there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it does not mean that AGW theory is simply based on this consensus.

AGW theory is based on numerous hypotheses, all of which are supported by a vast body of empirical evidence.

Now please tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored in developing the hypotheses which make up the theory and what scientific principles you think were ignored in the collection of the vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.

Can you do that?

Or will you continue trying to avoid explaining these stupid comments you make?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


Stop running away Greggery.

Please answer the question


You claimed AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, Greggery.

I am asking you to tell us what scientific principles were ignored.

Nobody has ever said that a consensus means that a theory or hypothesis is correct.  And the fact that there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it does not mean that AGW theory is simply based on this consensus.

AGW theory is based on numerous hypotheses, all of which are supported by a vast body of empirical evidence.

Now please tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored in developing the hypotheses which make up the theory and what scientific principles you think were ignored in the collection of the vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.

Can you do that?

Or will you continue trying to avoid explaining these stupid comments you make?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:


Because CO2 has become a pollutant because it suits a particular political agenda.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

Stop running away Greggery.

Please answer the question


You claimed AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, Greggery.

I am asking you to tell us what scientific principles were ignored.

Nobody has ever said that a consensus means that a theory or hypothesis is correct.  And the fact that there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it does not mean that AGW theory is simply based on this consensus.

AGW theory is based on numerous hypotheses, all of which are supported by a vast body of empirical evidence.

Now please tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored in developing the hypotheses which make up the theory and what scientific principles you think were ignored in the collection of the vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.

Can you do that?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

we are still waiting to find out why you claimed AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, Greggery.

I am asking you to tell us what scientific principles were ignored.  Why can't you tell us?

We have already established that you understand that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it.  We all know this.

What we want you to do is tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored.  Why can't you tell us?

Why do you make a silly claim - then run away when asked to explain it?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Yes Greggery.  A scientific issue cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides.  That is very correct.

Now how about you stop running away and actually explain to us why you claimed AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, Greggery.

What we want you to do is tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored.  Why can't you tell us? 

AGW theory is based on numerous hypotheses, all of which are supported by a vast body of empirical evidence.

Now please tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored in developing the hypotheses which make up the theory and what scientific principles you think were ignored in the collection of the vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.

Or do you simply deny the existence of the  vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses?  Is this wat you call "sticking to science"?  Closing your eyes and blindly denying the existence of the  vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.

Come on Greggey.

Stop running away.

Answer the question

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

I have never disagreed with the above statement.
Stop running away Greggery.

Answer the question

Please tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored in developing the hypotheses which make up the theory and what scientific principles you think were ignored in the collection of the vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.


Answer the question