Australian Politics Forum - AGW Denialist Church Collapses

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #60 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:37am

# wrote on 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.

I'll type it slowly this time, so that you can keep up.

Read it very carefully, and resist the urge to change my words into something I didn't actually say.

Here you go:

AGW is not a "hard fact".

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 #61 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:06am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:37am:

# wrote on 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.

...
AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you acknowledge, if only tacitly, that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists base their conclusions on hard facts.

Despite your deceitful evasiveness, we're getting somewhere.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #62 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:10am

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:37am:

# wrote on 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.

...
AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you acknowledge, if only tacitly, that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists base their conclusions on hard facts.

Despite your deceitful evasiveness, we're getting somewhere.

I acknowledge that AGW is not a "hard fact".

When you are able to do the same, you'll be taken seriously.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #63 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:27am

I think you're getting hung up on short term trends. Nobody ever said that there would be a steady increase from year to year. It doesn't work that way. There are many issues involved. For example, if China stopped all industrial operations immediately, the main effect would be the reduction in aerosols. Global temperatures would initially start to increase as a result, because aerosols, despite being pollutants, actually work against the effects of carbon dioxide. That is an example of a negative forcing.

The effect of the various forcings and feedbacks have been quantified and there is a lot of data available from the AURA satellite (for example) that improve our understandings of some of these effects. Clouds can have both positive and negative forcings. I can explain this in more depth if you want.

You haven't answered my questions. I'm trying to find out which part you have an issue with.

If you understand that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, why do you take issue with the fact that more carbon dioxide will increase the greenhouse effect? (It isn't linear of course. That doesn't come as a revelation to anybody)

Is it a question of the source of that carbon dioxide? Do you think that the total emissions to atmosphere are overstated?

- or is it a question of climate sensitivity?

If you are open and honest, then surely you're prepared to have the validity of your conclusions tested.

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 #64 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:09am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:10am:

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:37am:

# wrote on 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.

...
AGW is not a "hard fact".

So you acknowledge, if only tacitly, that the vast majority of the best qualified scientists base their conclusions on hard facts.

Despite your deceitful evasiveness, we're getting somewhere.

I acknowledge that AGW is not a "hard fact".
...

So now you deny that the consensus is based on fact? Do you still claim to be a sceptic?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137969 Gender:	Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses Reply #65 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:17am # wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:09am: So now you deny that the consensus is based on fact? Do you still claim to be a sceptic? I acknowledge that AGW is not a "hard fact". I'm still a sceptic, and you're still a cultist. Life goes on.
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 #66 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 11:36am

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

... AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still looking for the question, statement or implication in this thread to which that is a rational response.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

...
I'm still a sceptic, ...

Yet, you've repeatedly failed to validate that claim:
# 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

« Last Edit: Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:45pm by # »

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #67 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:44pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.

Now surely if the Denialist priests are claiming that the data sets are unreliable and inconclusive, and that there is a massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW, they should be able to point to who is on the other side (apart from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton of course)
...

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, ...

OK, so you tacitly acknowledge that there's no Quote:

... massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

... or even part of the scientific method?

Where did you pull that from? To what part of the opening post does it logically relate?

Most significantly, you've not been able to Quote:

List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.

A genuine sceptic would have rational reasoning at the ready.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #68 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:51pm

Quote:

No massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW

That in itself should speak volumes. The term "Consensus' is usually reserved for opinion. What we're really talking about is overwhelming factual evidence.

If you were a climate scientist who thought that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion (despite the fact that the figures line up) then it would make abundant sense to publish papers on such a truly remarkable epiphany. A newspaper comment or a blog entry really doesn't cut it. I'm sure they could get any number of billionaires to contribute to financing such research.

That's a thin red line there.

Don't call it consensus. Call it evidence. Overwhelming evidence.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:37pm 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 #69 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:19pm

muso wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

...
Don't call it consensus. Call it evidence. Overwhelming evidence.

"Consensus" first entered the argument when the climate science denial movement made a habit of denying that there is one. A number of studies have produced findings that displeased the deniers, so they now declare it irrelevant.

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 #70 - Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:31pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 7:12am:

This is how the consensus started, and as any inteligent person can see, it has nothing to do with science.
...

Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell
...

Of Larry Bell, Sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Bell says:
Quote:

... a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science[1], [2]. He is listed as author of a Jan. 2011 book titled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, published through the Greenleaf Book Group, a vanity press.

So no qualifications, just opinionated. Certainly no peer review.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #71 - Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:16pm

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 7:12am:

This is how the consensus started, and as any inteligent person can see, it has nothing to do with science.
...

Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell
...

Of Larry Bell, Sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Bell says:
Quote:

... a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science[1], [2]. He is listed as author of a Jan. 2011 book titled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, published through the Greenleaf Book Group, a vanity press.

So no qualifications, just opinionated. Certainly no peer review.

I think you'll find that the consensus is based on two questions posted over the internet.

Is science based on opinion???

Is science based on consensus???

Is science based on politics????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses Reply #72 - Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:28pm "Consensus" is a red herring. Factual evidence speaks for itself.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #73 - Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:48pm

muso wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

"Consensus" is a red herring. Factual evidence speaks for itself.

Correct I agree.

The oceans have not been warming, the 3000 buoys give us this factual information.

There is no hot spot in the tropopause, weather balloons and satellite data give us this factual information.

The oceans aren't rising, ocean experts give us this factual information.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375838504

Yes glaciers are melting because the forests and jungles at the foothill of those mountains have been turned into A4 paper.

Yes the North pole is melting but it has always done so, they had farming on Greenland not that long ago.

This is nothing new, has repeated itself in history many times.

The Antarctic is increasing....fact

Water vapour around the equator is normal.....fact.

Only computer models spit out the type of factual information that you and others constantly quote on here.

And frankly computer simulated models without real world verifications are nothing more than a hypothesis that cannot be proven.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: AGW Denialist Church Collapses
Reply #74 - Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:34pm

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

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

... AGW is not a "hard fact".

I'm still looking for the question, statement or implication in this thread to which that is a rational response.

You can stop looking:

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

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/52#52

Back to top

IP Logged