Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138582
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #210 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 8:03pm

# wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

# wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

...
* I've long considered trolling a sign of mental illness. That illness, I deduce, is probably a form of sociopathy.

... the excellent point I have made.

You say excellent point, I see only unsubstantiated assertion.

You have a very long history of seeing only that which you want to see. Your admission here comes as no great surprise to any of us, #.

So, how was the pie? Did you have it with cream?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 138582 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #211 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 8:27pm Too easy. Time for a new challenge.
Back to top	IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #212 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:23am

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

... He's a pretty decent bloke in other ways. ...

Given the marked differences in the personae he presents, which do you reckon is least false?

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

... He probably represents the views of most Australian laymen, ...

In view of his inability to substantiate anything he says, is there cause to suppose that he's actually expressing his views?

All things considered, it seems more likely to me that he's saying what will provoke a response. That varies depending on the board, so his persona varies.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #213 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:38am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

# wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

# wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

...
* I've long considered trolling a sign of mental illness. That illness, I deduce, is probably a form of sociopathy.

... the excellent point I have made.

You say excellent point, I see only unsubstantiated assertion.

You have a very long history of seeing only that which you want to see. ...

So you're saying I missed your substantiation? Link to it; I'd like to see what you came up with.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

So, how was the pie? Did you have it with cream?

Considering your self-confessed habits, you might like to reconsider that question. greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

Back to top

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #214 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:42am greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:14pm: ... Actually, it's you who repeatedly brings up Messrs Bolt and Monckton. ... From whence came the quote that started this topic?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 138582 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #215 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:50am # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:42am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:14pm: ... Actually, it's you who repeatedly brings up Messrs Bolt and Monckton. ... From whence came the quote that started this topic? 1. I didn't start this thread. 2. You always mention those fellows first, not I.
Back to top	IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #216 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:56am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

...
Actually, it's you who repeatedly brings up Messrs Bolt and Monckton.
...

From whence came the quote that started this topic?

...
2. You always mention those fellows first, not I.
...

So link to where I mentioned either of them.

Can't resist trolling, young sociopath, can you?# wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

...
* I've long considered trolling a sign of mental illness. That illness, I deduce, is probably a form of sociopathy.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #217 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:05am

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

...
By the way, nobody has mentioned this as yet, but the title of this thread is a bit of a strawman in itself. Apart from the fact that 95% is a pretty high level of confidence, the actual level of confidence stated is 95 - 100 %.

Quote:

(extremely likely: 95–100%

And yet: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:53pm:

...
Currently there is not enough reliable, credible, scientific evidence to support the AGW theory.

What are your credentials, greggery? Is it just your inflated ego talking? Perhaps you merely hope to provoke?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:13am by # »

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #218 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:02pm

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Lets see.

Humans burn fossil fuels which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans have intensified their de-forestation activities which releases additional Carbon.

We know from radio isotopic analysis of carbon that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the industrial period (since about 1890 actually) has been traced back to anthropogenic sources.

Now CO2 in the earths atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas.

Even without temperature data, one can predict an increase in average global temperature as CO2 levels are increased. Just as Arrhennius did in the 1890s.

To suggest that the basis of AGW is unsupported by evidence and theory is in my opinion a political stance that has no bearing on the science.

Its amazing how many young children don't have any issues with comprehension when it comes to AGW and the effects it can cause.

Yet there are still many who cling to the Boltisms and Moncton lies, for the most ridiculously immoral of motives.

Remember CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its concentration in the earths atmosphere is increasing DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVTIES. FACT! The Earth is warming at a rate with which there is no natural mechanism(s) to explain it. FACT.

Back to top

CarbonIsotope1.gif (103 KB | 33 )

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 138582 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #219 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:05am: What are your credentials, greggery? I can read, and count.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 138582 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #220 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:25pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:02pm: To suggest that the basis of AGW is unsupported by evidence and theory is in my opinion a political stance that has no bearing on the science. Who's suggesting that, exactly?
Back to top	IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #221 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:49pm greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm: # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:05am: What are your credentials, greggery? I can read, and count. So can the scientist. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Back to top	IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #222 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:50pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

To suggest that the basis of AGW is unsupported by evidence and theory is in my opinion a political stance that has no bearing on the science.

Who's suggesting that, exactly?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:53pm:

...
Currently there is not enough reliable, credible, scientific evidence to support the AGW theory.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138582
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #223 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:53pm

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

To suggest that the basis of AGW is unsupported by evidence and theory is in my opinion a political stance that has no bearing on the science.

Who's suggesting that, exactly?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:53pm:

...
Currently there is not enough reliable, credible, scientific evidence to support the AGW theory.

Thank you. You've proven that I'm not suggesting that.

So, my question remains: who is suggesting that, exactly?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #224 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 2:48pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

To suggest that the basis of AGW is unsupported by evidence and theory is in my opinion a political stance that has no bearing on the science.

Who's suggesting that, exactly?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:53pm:

...
Currently there is not enough reliable, credible, scientific evidence to support the AGW theory.

Thank you. You've proven that I'm not suggesting that.

So, my question remains: who is suggesting that, exactly?

Looks an awful lot like you are, doesn't it?

Back to top

IP Logged