Australian Politics Forum - AGW Denialist Church Collapses

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses Reply #45 - Aug 13^th, 2013 at 10:33pm Your pissing into Sydney Harbour incontrovertibly changes it's pH balance. The science is peer-reviewed and settled.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses Reply #46 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:25pm Aha! You were conspicuous by your absence, but you do have the strangest analogies. If you have an issue with your urine pH, I can recommend an excellent urologist.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #47 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:07pm

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method. Tsk tsk.

Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

wow: I PREDICT GREGGERY HATES YOUR GUTS ABOUT NOW!

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

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses Reply #48 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:11pm Soren wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 10:33pm: Your pissing into Sydney Harbour incontrovertibly changes it's pH balance. The science is peer-reviewed and settled. AND HERE IN LIES THE RUB(get ready folks for the SHEBANG_BANG!!): *..but would that change in afore-mentioned pH balance be measurable????*
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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #49 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:17pm

temperature measures what?

temperature is an indicator of HEAT CONTENT!

**

but go on ya dumb liberal voters- pretend you don't understand the 5 stages of kubler-ross for another 40 years until its too late and we all have to go(chess's forcing move combination-wow Roll Eyes

- slow moving theory to everything) nuclear but you're all in nursing homes too buggered to give a rats... go on, you know you want to impress your baby boomer loser pretend hard bitten old school parents ghosts(like seriously, the church buggered everything Roll Eyes

) by leaving your kids kids kids a legacy of saddness and aloofness- or should that be aloofness and sadness Shocked

!!!

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: 137969
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #50 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:50pm

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method. Tsk tsk.

Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #51 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method. Tsk tsk.

Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.

greggery peccary is a chess player, lol!

What a hardcore Cheesy

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

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #52 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method. Tsk tsk.

Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.

The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts. I'm happy to concentrate on the facts and leave the opinion to others . On the sticky threads I have presented some of that factual evidence. If you take the trouble to read it through, the facts speak for themselves.

I'm not going to respond to anything regarding carbon tax or emissions trading schemes. What I do object to is the bastardisation of science for political ends.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #53 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:27pm

Greggery, so good to see you back. Have you come up with an answer to:
# wrote on Aug 10^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?

Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

If you can't validate your denial, can you at least acknowledge that you're no sceptic?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method. Tsk tsk.

Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.
...

If consensus is irrelevant, why does your Cult of Climate Science Denial put so much effort into denying that there is one?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #54 - Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:01am

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Yet followers of the cult still seem to think that consensus is some sort of "argument" for the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, it's not even part of the scientific method. Tsk tsk.

Consensus of opinion is next to worthless, however consensus of evidence is a totally different matter.

The evidence of increased forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is unequivocal.

Newspaper articles are opinion. Blog articles are opinion. They are not part of the scientific method. Scientific papers have been subject to a rigorous peer review process. They are not opinion. They are evidence.

There is a difference.

Consensus about a theory is different yet again.

Stick to the science, and leave consensus out of it.

Trust me, you'll be taken more seriously if you do this one thing.

The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.

On this, we agree.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #55 - Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:34am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

...
Stick to the science, ...

So you deny that the consensus among scientist has anything to do with science? Do you have a rational basis for that denial?

By the way, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that you're a sceptic? I'm still waiting for a response to:
# wrote on Aug 10^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

...
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

Is your position scepticism or denial?

Scepticism.

As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #56 - Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:36am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.

On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts? Do you have a rational basis for that denial?

Do you still claim to be a sceptic?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #57 - Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:23pm

# wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.

On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?

Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses Reply #58 - Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:13pm In your opinion, is this based on hard facts? What about the absorption coefficient of Carbon dioxide at 10.6 microns? Is that a hard fact?
Back to top	« Last Edit: Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:19pm by muso » 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #59 - Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:16pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

# wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

...
The point I made is that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is hard facts.

On this, we agree.

Yet you deny that the consensus is based on hard facts?

Sorry to break it to you, but AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you deny that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists have any hard facts on which to base their conclusions. On what evidence is that based?

Bearing in mind that you claim to be a rational sceptic.

Back to top

IP Logged