Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #255 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:27pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

So what are your credentials for this superior opinion?

...
1. One does not need scientific credentials in order to have an opinion on a scientific theory.
...

# wrote on 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.

... Is it just your inflated ego talking? Perhaps you merely hope to provoke?

So no credentials. Inflated ego, perhaps?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #256 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:28pm

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

So what are your credentials for this superior opinion?

...
1. One does not need scientific credentials in order to have an opinion on a scientific theory.
...

# wrote on 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.

... Is it just your inflated ego talking? Perhaps you merely hope to provoke?

So no credentials. Inflated ego, perhaps?

Yes, and yes.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #257 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm

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

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Humans have increased the CO2 in the earths atmosphere (indisputable fact supported by scientific evidence and theory from many disciplines)

A rise in CO2 in the earths atmosphere will enhance the earths greenhouse effect, resulting in a warmer planet. (indisputable fact supported by evidence and theory from many disciplines)

I can only assume that Greggy doesn't understand what the words are in AGW.

OR

Good old Greggy rejects the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

(perhaps its both ladies and gentlemen - we may well be in the presence of a FM)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise. Just because you wish to avoid the truth by citing your neurotic semantics.

remember mr greggy, the near spherical earth geometry is also a theory.

it seems as though you don't wish to get past square 1, and enter the real debate where the grown ups discuss the nitty gritty of climate change.

you prefer to hide behind the word theory as if a scientific theory is somehow at a stage of being un settled.

care to dispute the theory of thermodynamics and its 4 laws?

what about the theory of relatively or natural selection?

just theories

YOU mr greggy must present an alternative THEORY as to why the earth is warming.

or do you believe the earth hasn't warmed over the past 60 years?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #258 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:59pm greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:27pm: ... So no credentials. Inflated ego, perhaps? Yes, and yes. Good to see you can acknowledge your failings.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #259 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:03pm

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

...So no credentials. Inflated ego, perhaps?

Yes, and yes.

Good to see you can acknowledge your failings.

1. One does not need scientific credentials in order to have an opinion on a scientific theory. Your inability to understand this is alarming, but not surprising.

2. Ego, is not a dirty word. Don't you believe what you've seen or you've heard.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:09pm by greggerypeccary »

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #260 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

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

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Humans have increased the CO2 in the earths atmosphere (indisputable fact supported by scientific evidence and theory from many disciplines)

A rise in CO2 in the earths atmosphere will enhance the earths greenhouse effect, resulting in a warmer planet. (indisputable fact supported by evidence and theory from many disciplines)

I can only assume that Greggy doesn't understand what the words are in AGW.

OR

Good old Greggy rejects the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

(perhaps its both ladies and gentlemen - we may well be in the presence of a FM)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise. Just because you wish to avoid the truth by citing your neurotic semantics.

remember mr greggy, the near spherical earth geometry is also a theory.

it seems as though you don't wish to get past square 1, and enter the real debate where the grown ups discuss the nitty gritty of climate change.

you prefer to hide behind the word theory as if a scientific theory is somehow at a stage of being un settled.

care to dispute the theory of thermodynamics and its 4 laws?

what about the theory of relatively or natural selection?

just theories

YOU mr greggy must present an alternative THEORY as to why the earth is warming.

or do you believe the earth hasn't warmed over the past 60 years?

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is no getting past this.

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

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 #261 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:18pm greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:03pm: ... Don't you believe what you've seen or you've heard. You've proven quite conclusively that you can't be believed. That you're evidently proud of the fact merely reinforces the evidence of your sociopathy.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #262 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:29pm

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

... Don't you believe what you've seen or you've heard.

You've proven quite conclusively that you can't be believed. That you're evidently proud of the fact merely reinforces the evidence of your sociopathy.

Thank you Doctor.

I'll expect your bill in the mail.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139619 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #263 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:31pm # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:03pm: ... Don't you believe what you've seen or you've heard. You've proven quite conclusively that you can't be believed. Just out of curiousity ... example?
Back to top	IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #264 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:44pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

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

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Humans have increased the CO2 in the earths atmosphere (indisputable fact supported by scientific evidence and theory from many disciplines)

A rise in CO2 in the earths atmosphere will enhance the earths greenhouse effect, resulting in a warmer planet. (indisputable fact supported by evidence and theory from many disciplines)

I can only assume that Greggy doesn't understand what the words are in AGW.

OR

Good old Greggy rejects the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

(perhaps its both ladies and gentlemen - we may well be in the presence of a FM)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise. Just because you wish to avoid the truth by citing your neurotic semantics.

remember mr greggy, the near spherical earth geometry is also a theory.

it seems as though you don't wish to get past square 1, and enter the real debate where the grown ups discuss the nitty gritty of climate change.

you prefer to hide behind the word theory as if a scientific theory is somehow at a stage of being un settled.

care to dispute the theory of thermodynamics and its 4 laws?

what about the theory of relatively or natural selection?

just theories

YOU mr greggy must present an alternative THEORY as to why the earth is warming.

or do you believe the earth hasn't warmed over the past 60 years?

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is no getting past this.

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise Mr Greggy

I am satisfied with the evidence and rationale that underpins AGW - its a fact as far as I am concerned, just as I accept Evolution as a fact.

We know how the theoretical revolutions occur and how paradigms shift etc

Your position seems to be that by calling AGW a theory you can somehow reject all the evidence and hide behind your paranoia.

A very common tactic often employed by the lunatic creationists and ID cults who dismiss biological evolution on the grounds that it is just a theory.

Describe the theoretical aspects of AGW and what annoys you so much about its factual nature Mr Greggy

We have lots of work to cover over the next few years Mr Greggy. And I am not even charging you

Back to top

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: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #265 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:52pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

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

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Humans have increased the CO2 in the earths atmosphere (indisputable fact supported by scientific evidence and theory from many disciplines)

A rise in CO2 in the earths atmosphere will enhance the earths greenhouse effect, resulting in a warmer planet. (indisputable fact supported by evidence and theory from many disciplines)

I can only assume that Greggy doesn't understand what the words are in AGW.

OR

Good old Greggy rejects the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

(perhaps its both ladies and gentlemen - we may well be in the presence of a FM)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise. Just because you wish to avoid the truth by citing your neurotic semantics.

remember mr greggy, the near spherical earth geometry is also a theory.

it seems as though you don't wish to get past square 1, and enter the real debate where the grown ups discuss the nitty gritty of climate change.

you prefer to hide behind the word theory as if a scientific theory is somehow at a stage of being un settled.

care to dispute the theory of thermodynamics and its 4 laws?

what about the theory of relatively or natural selection?

just theories

YOU mr greggy must present an alternative THEORY as to why the earth is warming.

or do you believe the earth hasn't warmed over the past 60 years?

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is no getting past this.

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise Mr Greggy

I am satisfied with the evidence and rationale that underpins AGW - its a fact as far as I am concerned, just as I accept Evolution as a fact.

We know how the theoretical revolutions occur and how paradigms shift etc

Your position seems to be that by calling AGW a theory you can somehow reject all the evidence and hide behind your paranoia.

A very common tactic often employed by the lunatic creationists and ID cults who dismiss biological evolution on the grounds that it is just a theory.

Describe the theoretical aspects of AGW and what annoys you so much about its factual nature Mr Greggy

We have lots of work to cover over the next few years Mr Greggy. And I am not even charging you

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is no getting past this.

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #266 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:58pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:52pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

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

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Humans have increased the CO2 in the earths atmosphere (indisputable fact supported by scientific evidence and theory from many disciplines)

A rise in CO2 in the earths atmosphere will enhance the earths greenhouse effect, resulting in a warmer planet. (indisputable fact supported by evidence and theory from many disciplines)

I can only assume that Greggy doesn't understand what the words are in AGW.

OR

Good old Greggy rejects the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

(perhaps its both ladies and gentlemen - we may well be in the presence of a FM)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise. Just because you wish to avoid the truth by citing your neurotic semantics.

remember mr greggy, the near spherical earth geometry is also a theory.

it seems as though you don't wish to get past square 1, and enter the real debate where the grown ups discuss the nitty gritty of climate change.

you prefer to hide behind the word theory as if a scientific theory is somehow at a stage of being un settled.

care to dispute the theory of thermodynamics and its 4 laws?

what about the theory of relatively or natural selection?

just theories

YOU mr greggy must present an alternative THEORY as to why the earth is warming.

or do you believe the earth hasn't warmed over the past 60 years?

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is no getting past this.

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

no need to apologise Mr Greggy

I am satisfied with the evidence and rationale that underpins AGW - its a fact as far as I am concerned, just as I accept Evolution as a fact.

We know how the theoretical revolutions occur and how paradigms shift etc

Your position seems to be that by calling AGW a theory you can somehow reject all the evidence and hide behind your paranoia.

A very common tactic often employed by the lunatic creationists and ID cults who dismiss biological evolution on the grounds that it is just a theory.

Describe the theoretical aspects of AGW and what annoys you so much about its factual nature Mr Greggy

We have lots of work to cover over the next few years Mr Greggy. And I am not even charging you

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is no getting past this.

You have no credibility in this forum.

I'm sorry.

Repeating yourself will not change the factual nature of AGW

join reality - be honest with yourself

(I wont hold my breath though)

Back to top

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: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #267 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:01pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

Repeating yourself will not change the factual nature of AGW

join reality - be honest with yourself

(I wont hold my breath though)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is just no getting past this.

You have absolutely no credibility left in this forum (you started with little).

I'm sorry.

That's the way it is from now on.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #268 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:35pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

Repeating yourself will not change the factual nature of AGW

join reality - be honest with yourself

(I wont hold my breath though)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is just no getting past this.

You have absolutely no credibility left in this forum (you started with little).

I'm sorry.

That's the way it is from now on.

Repeating yourself will not alter the factual nature of AGW.

you reject it

We will work on your illness together mr greggy

I will assist you at no extra cost.

I have helped others in this forum for no charge

Back to top

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: 139619
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #269 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:39pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

Repeating yourself will not change the factual nature of AGW

join reality - be honest with yourself

(I wont hold my breath though)

You've called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is just no getting past this.

You have absolutely no credibility left in this forum (you started with little).

I'm sorry.

That's the way it is from now on.

Repeating yourself will not alter the factual nature of AGW.

you reject it

We will work on your illness together mr greggy

I will assist you at no extra cost.

I have helped others in this forum for no charge

You have absolutely no credibility left in this forum (you started with little).

You called a scientific theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming) a "fact".

There is just no getting past that.

I'm sorry.

Even # has abandoned you now.

Back to top

IP Logged