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 #45 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm: ... I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up: ... Trolling again, young simpleton.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137969 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #46 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm # wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? It was a question, not a demand.
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 #47 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

...
Really? Source? Links?

History.

You've had a lot of experience trolling, haven't you young simpleton?

...
You searched and searched, ...
...

Trolls specialise in wasting time so, no, I didn't search. See history.

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 #48 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:13pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm: # wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? It was a question, ... A question to what end?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #49 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

...
I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up:
...

Trolling again, young simpleton.

Let's take a look at what's happening here:

1. You make false accusations about me.

2. When asked to provide evidence, you either change the subject, ignore the request, or say "History".

3. When things are explained to you and you still don't understand what is being said you resort to name calling.

4. I have continually said on this forum that AGW may indeed be happening, and that I have no problem with Governments taking precautionary measures.

5. Despite all of this, you continue to call me a 'troll' and a 'simpleton'.

I'll let others be the judge.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #50 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

...
Can we be certain ...

Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

What I mean is this:
Quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007, “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.” This translates to a 100-year rise of only 7 inches and 12 inches, far below the dire predictions of the climate alarmists.

But three millimeters is about the thickness of two dimes. Can scientists really measure a change in sea level over the course of a year, averaged across the world, which is two dimes thick?

How can they measure minuscule rises in height of a moving surface across the entire world ?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #51 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

...
Can we be certain ...

Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

It was a question, ...

A question to what end?

rhetorical question:

A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.

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 #52 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:35pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

...
Can we be certain ...

Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

It was a question, ...

A question to what end?

rhetorical question:

A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.

Sounds like you're backpedalling (and yes, I know it wasn't your question, but you have taken up the baton). Backpedalling with a baton; pardon the mixed metaphor.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #53 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:38pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

...
Can we be certain ...

Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

It was a question, ...

A question to what end?

rhetorical question:

A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.

Sounds like you're backpedalling (and yes, I know it wasn't your question, but you have taken up the baton). Backpedalling with a baton; pardon the mixed metaphor.

I'll just add it to your list of false accusations against me.

At least there was no name-calling this time.

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 #54 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

...
I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up:
...

Trolling again, young simpleton.

Let's take a look at what's happening here:

1. You make false accusations about me.

What false accusations?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

2. When asked to provide evidence, you either change the subject, ignore the request, or say "History".

If the evidence is in the history, what more is to be said? Like most trolls, you post a lot. I don't necessarily see every post.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

3. When things are explained to you and you still don't understand what is being said you resort to name calling.

When you repeat drivel, I call it as I see it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

4. I have continually said on this forum that AGW may indeed be happening, and that I have no problem with Governments taking precautionary measures.

You have repeatedly said such things. Your behaviour is not consistent with your words.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

5. Despite all of this, you continue to call me a 'troll' and a 'simpleton'.

As I said, I call it as I see it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

I'll let others be the judge.

Indeed

To be clear, I regard you as a teenage troll who is using this forum for onanistic "fun".

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #55 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:50pm Too much winking will make you go blind.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #56 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:53pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

You have repeatedly said such things.

So many times, I've lost count.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

Your behaviour is not consistent with your words.

You make hasty assumptions; that's where the problem lies.

Just because I'm not convinced that AGW is happening (although I'm not certain), it doesn't mean I object to precautionary action.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #57 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

...
Can we be certain ...

Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

What I mean is this:
Quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007, “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.” This translates to a 100-year rise of only 7 inches and 12 inches, far below the dire predictions of the climate alarmists.

But three millimeters is about the thickness of two dimes. Can scientists really measure a change in sea level over the course of a year, averaged across the world, which is two dimes thick?

How can they measure minuscule rises in height of a moving surface across the entire world ?

I was also sceptical of this, which is why I read the technical specifications for the Jason 2 Satellite (to be specific, the Poseidon-3 precision altimeter installed on that satellite). There is a thread dedicated to this. Three independant agencies came up with a precision of between 0.4 to 0.6mm in terms of annual increase in sea level change.

If you are genuinely sceptical, I suggest that you do the same.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137969 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #58 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm # wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm: To be clear, I regard you as a teenage troll who is using this forum for onanistic "fun". To be clear, I couldn't care less what you regard me as. Moreover, I'm not adverse to onanism or fun.
Back to top	IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #59 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:02pm

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

I was also sceptical of this, which is why I read the technical specifications for the Jason 2 Satellite (to be specific, the Poseidon-3 precision altimeter installed on that satellite). There is a thread dedicated to this. Three independant agencies came up with a precision of between 0.4 to 0.6mm in terms of annual increase in sea level change.

If you are genuinely sceptical, I suggest that you do the same.

Cheers I'll have a look.
Of course I'm genuine!

Back to top

Challenge.jpg (11 KB | 33 )

IP Logged