# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:00am:



"habitually" ? Where did you get that from?  If one is "not adverse to onanism", it doesn't mean they "habitually" masturbate.  You really should take a course in English old boy.

So, are you telling us that you don't masturbate?  Really?

No surprise there I suppose: you lie about everything else, so there's no reason to expect the truth from you regarding onanism.

Does your religion forbid you from doing it (not AGW, your other religion)?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

From your behaviour.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:


What about empirical evidence and facts do you deal in those?
How many times do they have to fail before you will call them "not credible". Oh that's right anyone who doesn't agree scientist, data analyst or common sense reporter all have no credibility. This just sounds like denial, anything you don't like you deny. Even when people leave the IPCC in disgust and write about it, the moment they leave they lose credibility?  I think my job here is done!

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:


Most scientists who leave the IPCC disillusioned feel that the IPCC reports are too conservative in their recommended actions to tackle climate change. Too many political inputs have made their conclusions very conservative and far too often use politically mundane terminology so as to reduce public panic or alarm

I suggest that you ignore the IPCC reports or merely use then as a first stepping stone.

The peer reviewed scientific literature is far more informative but takes a long to time properly sieve through.

If you are genuinely interested in this important global issue that is threatening human civilisation you would put in the energy to educate yourself.

Obviously this is far too much work for you to do, so carry on Reading Mr Bolts crap Murdoch paid editorials and spin garbage.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:
Where I'm qualified and only if the source is credible. Most on this board are no more qualified than I am, yet they persist in proving Dunning & Kruger right.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:
Substantiate their failure from a credible source and we might have a basis for discussion.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:
Anything that isn't substantiated, I ignore.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:
Substantiation (from a credible source, of course)?

#
This word "substantiate" seems like a brand new scapegoat to avoid debate. That's okay I won't bother. It seems you won't be happy unless someone writes their own totally sourced novel and puts it in for peer review just to prove a point.

I don't know how "substantiated" and "credible" you can get with people leaving the IPCC. They leave the IPCC and do interviews and the answers and opinions are posted in blogs. You can't get more than that, the only thing further I've seen was that twitter post from the guy himself about the 97% survey or youtube/news videos of the people speaking themselves.

All the graphs have a source, most of them come from the IPCC and the "peer reviewed" papers they use, same with the IPCC and same with any graph bloggers use, they use data collected from either papers or straight up data recordings.

Lastly are you saying we have to have oceanographer PHDs to show a graph about ocean temperature cooling with data collected by an oceanographer.....? What about Ice Core data, do we have to go collect it ourselves? Am I not credible and qualified to read lines on a graph?

I think you miss the point of what a discussion and what a debate is. It's not about who has the most certificates. Usually people start with what would be accepted examples and evidence. (ie debate guidelines) In this case all we can use is opinions and papers by scientists, data collected by scientists, blogs including interviews with scientists and good old fashion logic. If you want no part of it that's fine I'll stick to engaging people that have a thirst for logical discussion and rational debate. You won't find what you're looking for here that's for sure, but good luck. 

Rider wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 6:22am:


"We have to do something!" and by "we" they mean the government has to force everyone to do something with the threat of violence, whilst stealing taxes and spending them on what a small group of politicized scientists  say they should be spent on. Sounds like Technocratic Fascism , but people don't care as long as it's "for the earth!" or "for the poor!".

The AGW denialist Church avoids publishing its research articles in peer reviewed scientific journals

They prefer the mass media and internet.

A place where they can lie and distort with impunity

Extremely easy to expose though - like shooting fish in a barrel ladies and gentlemen

Its quite humorous watching them self destruct with their own lies and convoluted pseudo arguments