Australian Politics Forum - AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #45 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:19am

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

While I don't agree we can necessarily do anything about climate change, those who pursue denial as an agenda are degenerates and should be liquidated as members of a dangerous cult.

Awesome!, you would have been handy at Auschwitz, thats the trouble with clowns like you, you were born way too late and missed the show Grin

Except what the Nazi's did to the Jews at Auschwitz was irrational and a crime against humanity.

And calling for the death penalty for people who have a different opinion to you ISN'T 'irrational and a crime against humanity'????

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation Reply #46 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:33am I swear these global warming cranks get loonier by the day, I guess no global warming will do that
Back to top	IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #47 - Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:54pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

...
I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding.

A belief which you have no hope of substantiating.
gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure.
...

Of what?

Of course I can substantiate my statement.
They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change.

So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC).

Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets.

I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming.

As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise.

Back to top

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation Reply #48 - Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:59pm Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:35am: # wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm: I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. ... How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....??????? ... How many times have they been right?
Back to top	IP Logged

viewpoint Gold Member Offline A joke is a very serious thing. [Winston] Posts: 2209 Gender:	Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation Reply #49 - Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change.... It's been like this for eons.....
Back to top	Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Sir Winston Churchill IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #50 - Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:28pm

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change....

It's been like this for eons.....

No, according to the global warming cult we used to live in a climate controlled paradise where every day was perfect, just the right amount of wind, just the right amount of Sun and just the right amount of rain for millions of years right up until right wing conservatives buggered it all Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #51 - Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:56pm

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

...
I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding.

A belief which you have no hope of substantiating.
gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure.
...

Of what?

Of course I can substantiate my statement.
They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change.

So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC).

Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets.

I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming.

As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise.

Umm you do know that the 'fossil fuel industry' doesn't really run around, throwing huge amounts of money at scientists to intimidate them into selling out, don't you??

They probably do fund some scientists who don't accept the current theory, but then the oil companies fund lots and lots of scientists, in all sorts of fields.

The 'fossil fuel industry' isn't anti-alternative energy, or even 'anti' AGW, their only real concern is trying to make sure that whatever alternative fuel system eventually gets used runs on fuel sold by THEM.

I mean it's fairly good idea, inventing an 'evil empire' to blame when people poke holes in the doctrine, but it doesn't really work these days. The public is a little too switched on to fall for the Reds Under the Bed ploy.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation Reply #52 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:36am So it would seem from a few commentators here that "threats" are somehow problematic or inappropriate. So, does that mean that death threats made against the lives of scientists would be unacceptable also? I am curious, would you be outraged by that should it ever occur?
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #53 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:42am

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

...
How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....???????
...

How many times have they been right?

You tell me because I can't recall not even one time that their computer models have been correct......????

Some of their failures are.....!!!

Can you deny the following,

Climategate - showed how Mann and Co. operate, more politics than science.

IPCC stated glaciers would all be gone by 2035.

Alarmists where saying in 2005 2006 that by 2013 the arctic would be free of ice.

The hot spot in the tropopasue, once upon a time it was the mantle piece of AGW.

The missing heat is in the oceans, after a 15 years of no warming.

The consensus was fabricated from an online two question survey.

Cook et al a fraudulent attempt to prove the consensus.

1990 IPCC computer model forecasts got it wrong, proven in the last 15 years when we had 0.05 degree warming per decade instead of the 0.2 degree warming per decade forecast by their computer models.

IPCC overestimates CO2 forcing and CO2 lifetime in our atmosphere.

Can you give me an example of where the science based on computer circulation models got it right.....????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #54 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:46am

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

So it would seem from a few commentators here that "threats" are somehow problematic or inappropriate.

So, does that mean that death threats made against the lives of scientists would be unacceptable also?

I am curious, would you be outraged by that should it ever occur?

Have you seen the sh!t that's in the media, of alarmists saying things about sceptics like their heretics and need to be hanged or killed.....!!!!!

When you have the science there is no need to bully.

You hang it out like dogs balls for all to see.

Some of the alarmists are really sick in the head.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #55 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:20pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

...
How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....???????
...

How many times have they been right?

You tell me because I can't recall not even one time ...

So the majority of scientists have never been right?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #56 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:28pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

...
I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding.

A belief which you have no hope of substantiating.
gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure.
...

Of what?

Of course I can substantiate my statement.
They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change.

So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC).

Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets.

I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming.

As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise.

Umm you do know that the 'fossil fuel industry' doesn't really run around, throwing huge amounts of money at scientists to intimidate them into selling out, don't you?? ...

I presume you're implying that someone does?

In brief, you assert much and substantiate nothing.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 139601
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #57 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change....

It's been like this for eons.....

The alarmists will dismiss this post as just being "silly", however, it actually is a very good demonstration of exactly how ridiculous the AGW "argument" is.

Who determines the appropriate time frame for measuring climate and weather?

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #58 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change....

It's been like this for eons.....

The alarmists will dismiss this post as just being "silly", however, it actually is a very good demonstration of exactly how ridiculous the AGW "argument" is.

Who determines the appropriate time frame for measuring climate and weather?

Is EXXON an alarmist fossil fuel corporation?

The conclusions of EXXON's internal reports and analyses as well as their own scientists support urgent international action to mitigate the effects of AGW.

THey may secretly fund crack pot spin doctors, right wing fossil fuel think tanks and liars, as well as pour money into lobbying politicians etc., but officially EXXON have a very strong commitment to tackling climate change. I suggest you check out the official stance of ALL of the fossil fuel corporations, including the Peabody Coal company and mining giants such as BHP. RIO TINTO and Vale.

You seem to have taken their bait - its easy to do if you see what you WANT to see rather than examine the data in an honest and open manner.

good luck with the therapy muso

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

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 139601
Gender: male

Re: AGW contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Reply #59 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:13pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change....

It's been like this for eons.....

The alarmists will dismiss this post as just being "silly", however, it actually is a very good demonstration of exactly how ridiculous the AGW "argument" is.

Who determines the appropriate time frame for measuring climate and weather?

Is EXXON an alarmist fossil fuel corporation?

Do you always answer questions with a question?

Back to top

IP Logged