rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:



I have to pull you up there my friend.

There's no "back-peddling" whatsoever.  Check all my previous posts (apart from the one I made the error in).

I have consistently said that the AGW hypothesis is quite a good one (hell, if I was a little more gullible I'd probably believe in it too).

I have also consistently said that there is plenty of evidence to support it.  No denying that.

My concern is the lack of credible, reliable evidence which convincingly shows that the hypothesis is correct.  There's plenty of evidence, but very little of it is any good.

My problem has always been with those disciples who seem to think that AGW is some sort of foregone conclusion and that "the debate is over".  I have no time for these closed-minded, unscientific cretins.

And the reason for "avoiding the question on about 12 separate occasions" is your tendency to throw little tantrums: I simply ignore most of your long-winded, repetitive posts when you get into that mode.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 3:55pm:

   

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:



I'm not selling (pushing) anything.

Unlike the alarmists who are constantly flogging fear.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Yes.  It is.  Correct

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Why Greggery?  What is nonsense about it?

Which of the vast amount of evidence that supports the theory is not credible, or reliable ?
Why isn't it any good?

Could you tell us?

Do you know what the Precautionary Principle is Greggery?

The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Are you saying that he vast amount of evidence that supports AGW theory does not constitute a "plausible risk"?

Why?  What is implausible about it?
Could you tell us?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:



Nope, not saying that at all.  Now you're just making stuff up.

You've obviously never read any of my previous posts.

I've consistently said that I have no problem with taking precautionary measures.

I've said, on more than one occasion, "have as many carbon taxes as you like ... I couldn't care less".

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Lol, real estate agents get laughed at buddy- my dad owns a franchise: who gives a toss!

 

go tradie-cum-real-estate agents building dodgy walls with a bit o white on top!! 

yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, business acumen tryhards vote liberal!!