Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #270 - Sep 4^th, 2015 at 6:04pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

Are you crazy! Why on earth would I bother debating the science with you. You don't know anything about the science. Your a clueless yobbo with an ideological need to deny AGW. All I need to know is that 97% of the people who understand this field and close to 100% of respected scientific organisations in the world are saying that AGW is happening. We can't be experts in everything. My approach is the rational approach that rational human beings have adopted for centuries. Your approach is either dishonest (bordering on criminal in view of the circumstances) or breathtakingly stupid.

You, the great champion of direct democracy, socialism and people getting involved in governing themselves, immediately run to blind obedience and abject submission to authority the moment you are called upon to think for yourself.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #271 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 12:34am

Soren wrote on Sep 4^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

Are you crazy! Why on earth would I bother debating the science with you. You don't know anything about the science. Your a clueless yobbo with an ideological need to deny AGW. All I need to know is that 97% of the people who understand this field and close to 100% of respected scientific organisations in the world are saying that AGW is happening. We can't be experts in everything. My approach is the rational approach that rational human beings have adopted for centuries. Your approach is either dishonest (bordering on criminal in view of the circumstances) or breathtakingly stupid.

You, the great champion of direct democracy, socialism and people getting involved in governing themselves, immediately run to blind obedience and abject submission to authority the moment you are called upon to think for yourself.

Direct democracy and socialism isn't about being stupid. That's your kind of politics. We believe in making sound decisions based on common sense, sound advice and whats in the best interests of the community as a whole. Not like you pedaling this BS propaganda of the wealthy few to the determent of humanity and the planet itself.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #272 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am

Since man-made Global Warming is becoming increasingly unknowable and avoids being accurately measured, progressive scientists are working hard on new arguments to convince the masses in the necessity to believe in it. In lieu of objective criteria it boils down to a simple matter of faith: Global Warming is, or It is not. But to which side shall the progressive masses incline? In a stunning breakthrough, researchers at Karl Marx Treatment Center have developed a revolutionary concept of the People's Cube Global Warming Wager which proves that believing in Global Warming is more advantageous than not believing. It's similar to the Pascal's Wager argument, only it's more progressive.

We can argue that it is always a better "bet" to believe in Global Warming, because the expected value to be gained from believing in Global Warming is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of Global Warming, but rather one for the belief in It. This argument is specifically aimed at the ignorant masses who are not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of Global Warming.
In short, Man-Made Global Warming Wager can be described as follows: Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Global Warming is. If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!
http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/pascal-s-global-warming-wager-amen-and-h...

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #273 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:21am

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!

This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #274 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:59am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!

This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness.

It is about ideology on BOTH SIDES of the AGW argument. This is not about science - who could believe that controlling 0.005% of atmospheric gases (human generated CO2 - we could control the climate? Nobody. You have never once brought up any scientific points and refuse to engage with basic numbers.

AGW is a the new clash of ideologies about the economy, international relations, wealth generation and distribution and the like. It is politics.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #275 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 11:07am

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!

This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness.

It is about ideology on BOTH SIDES of the AGW argument. This is not about science - who could believe that controlling 0.005% of atmospheric gases (human generated CO2 - we could control the climate? Nobody. You have never once brought up any scientific points and refuse to engage with basic numbers.

AGW is a the new clash of ideologies about the economy, international relations, wealth generation and distribution and the like. It is politics.

Another bout of insane and inane babble and blather from Soren who is totally without reason in his diatribes.

Soren's paymaster is demanding Soren improve his performance so Soren launches bitter, sniping, baseless attacks because he has no arguments.

The evidence of global warming consensus is clear.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #276 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 11:40am http://www.steynonline.com/7144/day-of-disgrace
Back to top	IP Logged

Unforgiven Gold Member Offline I have sinned Posts: 8879 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #277 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 12:10pm Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 11:40am: http://www.steynonline.com/7144/day-of-disgrace Soren is out of scripts or his pay cheque didn't arrive.
Back to top	“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #278 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 12:37pm

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!

This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness.

It is about ideology on BOTH SIDES of the AGW argument. This is not about science - who could believe that controlling 0.005% of atmospheric gases (human generated CO2 - we could control the climate? Nobody. You have never once brought up any scientific points and refuse to engage with basic numbers.

AGW is a the new clash of ideologies about the economy, international relations, wealth generation and distribution and the like. It is politics.

Its about science and that's why you deny science based on your uneducated, ignorant, screwball brain fart ideas. Because the rock solid science has implications that you don't like for your fanatical religious faith in capitalism. You are worse then any muslim fanatic and doing much greater harm. The laws of physics wont change to suite your personal beliefs

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #279 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 6:00pm

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 11:40am:

http://www.steynonline.com/7144/day-of-disgrace

I have read some of it and it is startling. REAL scientists - including nobel laureates - are lining up to skewer Mann and the infamous Hockey Stick as fraudulent. Even Phil Jones of Climategate 'fame' calls Mann a pest. You should all read it - 100 of the worlds top scientists from the Left and the Right, pro-AGW and anti - and they all say the Hockey stick is garbage.

And you all fell for it!

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #280 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 6:41pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 12:37pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!

This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness.

It is about ideology on BOTH SIDES of the AGW argument. This is not about science - who could believe that controlling 0.005% of atmospheric gases (human generated CO2 - we could control the climate? Nobody. You have never once brought up any scientific points and refuse to engage with basic numbers.

AGW is a the new clash of ideologies about the economy, international relations, wealth generation and distribution and the like. It is politics.

Its about science

But that is the single thing you will never, ever, EVER discuss.

It is not about science to YOU. You do not understand science. You only understand submission to authority and group-thing. You are a socialist. You crave to be told what to think.

To you, thinking independently is heresy, evil, ignorance, screwball. It is the only thing you will not tolerate - dissent.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #281 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 7:07pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 6:00pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 11:40am:

http://www.steynonline.com/7144/day-of-disgrace

I have read some of it and it is startling. REAL scientists - including nobel laureates - are lining up to skewer Mann and the infamous Hockey Stick as fraudulent. Even Phil Jones of Climategate 'fame' calls Mann a pest. You should all read it - 100 of the worlds top scientists from the Left and the Right, pro-AGW and anti - and they all say the Hockey stick is garbage.

And you all fell for it!

Longy, you're a despicable liar as always. The fact that you had to change your nick because you trashed your credibility for telling too many lies too often is proof of the depths you will sink to deceive people. To pretend that this trashy book isn't driven by sheer ideology is amongst your worst lies. Styne's book (Primarily an entertainment writer and critic who refers to himself as "a right-wing bastard") was written in conjuction with the Institute of Public Affairs, whose list of donors reads like the whos who of the fossil fuel industry including ExxonMobil, WMC Resources, BHP Billiton, Caltex, Shell, and Esso.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #282 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 7:20pm

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 12:37pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!

This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness.

It is about ideology on BOTH SIDES of the AGW argument. This is not about science - who could believe that controlling 0.005% of atmospheric gases (human generated CO2 - we could control the climate? Nobody. You have never once brought up any scientific points and refuse to engage with basic numbers.

AGW is a the new clash of ideologies about the economy, international relations, wealth generation and distribution and the like. It is politics.

Its about science and that's why you deny science based on your uneducated, ignorant, screwball brain fart ideas. Because the rock solid science has implications that you don't like for your fanatical religious faith in capitalism. You are worse then any muslim fanatic and doing much greater harm. The laws of physics wont change to suite your personal beliefs

But that is the single thing you will never, ever, EVER discuss.

It is not about science to YOU. You do not understand science. You only understand submission to authority and group-thing. You are a socialist. You crave to be told what to think.

To you, thinking independently is heresy, evil, ignorance, screwball. It is the only thing you will not tolerate - dissent.

Not with you fool!!!! You don't know anything about the subject and don't have the common sense to take the advice of the people who know over your absurd ignorant and uninformed opinions on the matter. How many times does that simple and time honoured concept need to be explained to you until you get it into your head. You may as well be telling the world that Einstein's theory of relativity is BS because when you travel in your car at 120K per hour you don't feel time slow. The only one you could convince with an argument like that is Longy because he's a fake scientist like you.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #283 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 7:38pm

Taylors' Wines are wonderful Australian winemakers from the Clare Valley. This is the link to their website

http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-wa...

I think they make some excellent wines and I just happened on their website today and found the following article (I only produced the first half here, follow the link for the rest) in which they speak, not as advocates of Climate Change but from first hand experience of climate change, which of course is vitally important to their industry.

You see, although despicable charlatans like Soren and longy have sought to obfuscate and misinform for their fanatical ideological purposes, there are the honest people who in their daily lives see climate change first hand and speak of it, not as conjecture but as the reality that they have to contend with if their industry is to survive. What follows is the first part of their blog (highlights mine)

"Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine?

Mon, 16 March 2015

Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone.

Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier.

The impact of global warming on grape growing

Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did.

How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures

Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #284 - Sep 5^th, 2015 at 8:14pm Marching on, trala, trala. Tomorrow belongs to you:
Back to top	IP Logged