Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
Whyfor  Democracy?
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
Isn't it the nature of probabilities that they "aren't always"? Aren't probabilities an aid to making decisions in uncertainty?
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
Probability?
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
Making no sense at all here. Misinterpreting the meaning of "majority".
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
Sounds like libertarian hysteria. Isn't it better to make a choice while we still have choices? On the best advice, won't nature eventually "force" a fate upon us?
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
The few representing the majority: now there's an interesting perversion of language. In this context, majority is a tool for determining probability, to aid in decision making. Does denying it do more than evade the decision?
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
To a certain mindset, that's irresistible. It took me decades to realise the folly in it.

By the 1990s, I'd concluded that climate science is so complex that I would never develop a credible comprehension of it. So I decided that my best option is to accept the opinion of the majority of the best qualified. Since then, the Merchants of Doubt have so muddied the waters that avoiding the influences of our own world views is virtually impossible. We're pretty much doomed to reinforce what we already believe, rather than coming to conclusions based on genuine evidence.

Most of us base our decisions on what people we trust tell us. These days we have too many skilled liars, well-paid by vested interests, peddling distortions.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
There's that libertarian streak again. Aren't we "forced" to choose? Aren't we better off choosing while we still have choices? Won't nature eventually "force" us?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
Of which, the best qualified say they're 95 to 100% certain it's us.
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:
There, I have to disagree. If the cause isn't us, then are we the solution?

If global warming isn't anthropogenic, then what can humanity do? Without what you call "force", will vested interests agree on the failures? Will they permit the solutions? What are vested interests likely to do, except exploit the situation for short-term gain?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:


Because their suppose to be the experts and they keep getting it wrong, so what does that say about their credibility....???

They are the front runners on carbon pricing, governments around the world are listening to their CO2 mitigation policies yet their science has failed to prove anything of what they claim.

Quote:


I don't think CO2 controls temperature here on Earth it never has in the past when we had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today in our atmosphere, so why should it now all of a sudden.

Just because the elite moguls of this world have decided that cheap energy will no longer be available at the finger tips of the masses.......?????

The IPCC is a political body controlled by the United Nations, now do you know who controls the United Nations...???

Quote:


Why are you alarmists always twisting our words, that's rubbish and you know it.

I do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and may have some affect on the current warming of the Earth.

What I don't believe is that man's emissions of CO2 are solely  responsible for all the warming we have had in the last 50 to 60 years.

The Earth is always warming and cooling regardless of what the CO2 is doing.

In our history there have been times when the Earth cooled and CO2 rose, there have been times when the temperature rose and CO2 declined.

Quote:


WTF are you talking about, been on the turps have we..???

Quote:


I'm debating the false hypothesis that is anthropogenic global warming.

I'm Ajax.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:59am:



And who made you god to recognise the experts from the laymen.

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:10am:

Does one need to be a god?

God, expert or layman; which do you claim to be?

#

Probability means nothing when you fail over and over. The IPCC is the boy that cried wolf for attention and funding. But people aren't listening anymore UNTIL they prove themselves for once.

I love the way you say "best qualified", in the face of Donna Laframboise pointing out the mere graduates in the IPCC and the perversion of the scientific and peer review method they employ.(evidenced by the climategate emails and the ignorance of the IPCC to author recommendations hence people leaving in disgust) Yet when scientists disagree like the NIPCC or anyone else ("best qualified"), you discard them and attack the scientists with ad hominem instead of beating them with evidence and logic through debate. (Ad hominem = cheap lawyer tactics)

As far as skeptics are concerned the IPCC is not the best qualified, nor do they have the best credibility due their data manipulation (see Burt Rutan data analysis) and continual failure.

As to your last questions(s) about what can humanity do or aren't we forced to make a choice, did you miss the memo when it was proven (even by poor poor monckton through the research of others) that it is far more economically feasible to adapt to changes rather than try and prevent the inevitable with a tax on air. The IPCC also puts forward many solutions, but do you see many actually happening besides taxes and inefficient alternative energy subsidies?

Any opinions on why people are leaving the IPCC in disgust?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

As for adaptation, it depends on where global warming stops.
Quote:

Good luck with that.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:38am:


Your the one playing god, I'm just a layman.

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

How so?