greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Perhaps, but to be a genuine sceptic, one does need to know a bit. I came to the conclusion that I don't know enough to be a sceptic.

You've revealed that you are no better qualified or more knowledgeable than I. So, on what basis have you decided that such a tiny minority cult* is more credible than the mainstream?

* Before you object to my use of the word "cult"; is a cult generally a majority or a minority?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:


Unfortunately I'm giving your inaccurate and mostly debunked nonsense circular argument of irrelevancies a shot of oxygen by replying, when any empirically (that's non computer modelled) information comes to hand demonstrating that any of these have been influenced in any way substantial (let alone catastrophically) by puny mankinds influences then I'll give a toss.

BTW - I said statistically significant warming and I noticed you studiously ignored what I said so that you could relaunch into your boorish cut 'n' paste - there is a pedantic difference and I know how much you like to spin the slightest misused wording into a handful of agonisingly toxic pages of utter tripe.

Is it your job to mix up the Kool Aid? Keep an eye on # I think she/he's been over doing it 

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



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.

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

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

Rider wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

Heh!  I just gave you 5 examples of empirical evidence which clearly indicate that the planet is warming.  Nothing to do with "computer modelling".

Empirical evidence.

You don't actually understand what these words you are using actually mean, do you.

You could read the latest published data about these 5 particular paramters and see the empirical evidence if you were really interested here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2012.php

But you are not interested in empirical evidence at all, are you.
You just want to deny it exists

Rider wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

No - I provided your with 5 examples of empirically measured parameters which have shown statistically significant changes in the past 15 years that indicate that the planet is warming.

You don't actually understand what these words you are using actually mean, do you.

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

Which part of the evidence are you sceptical about Greggery?

Why can't you tell us?

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

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.

In Case anybody's wondering, notrickszone.com is yet another climate science denial site. Pierre Gosling seems the be an American with a Bachelor of Science living in Germany. The site basically rehashes fantasies from other denial sites.

The site is so low in the hierarchy that it barely registers. Here's one remark I found that mentions it http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/qa-be-an-honorable-ancestor-a...:
"The tricks of No Tricks Zone
You don’t have to be a scientist to see that most of the so-called climate skepticism out there is complete bollocks. Step up to the plate Pierre Gosselin in Germany who writes the ironically titled “No Tricks Zone” .

Take this. Amospheric changes on all 9 planets explains the cause of global warming as “the sun, stupid” . A real skeptic would doubt any conclusion that is so forthright but Pierre expresses no doubts whatsoever and if you don’t agree you’re stupid. But what evidence is there that warming on other planets and the Earth share the same cause? Pierre offers none . He has arrived at his explanation for global warming on the Earth by … looking at completely different planets. Unfortunately none of those other bodies in the solar system support life, a point that I have made to P but it seems to have gone past him.

A few days later Pierre’s headline is “NOAA Data Shows Slowing Sea Level Rise”. Pierre sorts the results of a selection of coastal stations around the globe into four categories which he calls ‘observed most recent rate trend’. Although he claims six stations show a ‘steady drop’ three of those (Karachi, Walvis Bay and Tenerife) actually record numerical rises in sea level. So how does Pierre arrive at his ‘observed most recent rate trend’? I ask if it’s simply Pierre’s opinion of the most recent direction of the line on the graph perhaps. “It was arrived at by looking at the data” is P’s cryptic response. He then suggests “your time would be better spent if you asked [Stefan] Rahmstorf at the PIK how they reached their conclusions of accelerating SLR. ” Quite."

Of course, to a dedicated denier, it's all Gospel.