Ajax wrote on Aug 20
th, 2013 at 1:12pm:
...
There has been no warming since 1998, I know it, you know it and the majority of Australians know it.
...
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24
th, 2013 at 1:18pm:
# wrote on Aug 20
th, 2013 at 8:12pm:
Denial and assertion don't win arguments.
What is it I'm denying?
What makes you think that I was referring to you?
But now that you mention it:
# 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.
The invitation was repeated at least a couple of times:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/31#31http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/33#33You repeatedly failed to detail a rational basis for your denial. Your behaviour therefore doesn't qualify as scepticism.
Forum software records your history. Irritating, isn't it?