OT GW - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT GW
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:25:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So, your cited figure of 95% certainty turns out to be bullshit,
according to your new tune.

However, it is even worse than that


"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming
over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except
Antarctica)" - Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
ChangeCore Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.)
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104

What that means is this, there is a 66% probability of AGW.

Correct me if I am wrong, Trevor, but you have been claiming that AGW
is "a fact", and you have cited a 95% confidence from the IPCC AR4.

But the actual value that they gave was 66%.

There is chasm between what you claim the science says, and what it
says, and this chasm is most apparent when you give specific sources,
allowing the disparity to be nailed, so to speak.

To refresh your memory about your claims:

"**Conclusive proof may never be reached. In the 1970s, we were at
around 70% certainty. Now we are at 95% certainty. IOn ten years, we
may be at (say) 98%. In 20 years, 99%. In another 50 years, 99.5%. In
100 years, 99.9%. It is an asymptotic curve. 100% certainty may never
be reached.
Such is the nature of these things.

Assuming 100% will never be reached, at what point do YOU consider the
theory acceptable? 96%? 97%? 98%?"

[66% is well short of the certainty that you claim]

"**I did not say: "95% of climatologists". I said that the
climatologists were 95% certain that AGW theory was valid."

Again, we see the disparity between what you claim they say, and your
cited source, which actually gives a 66% certainty.

You claim to have read the 4th IPCC report, but the report
consistently does not support your claims, least of all your claims as
to what it says.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You deny the other side a few cherries?

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

Re: OT GW
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:22:19 +0800, Bernd Felsche

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is not a logical fallacy in itself.  These organisations may be
seen to be experts in fields relevant to the subject, and it s
Trevor's contention that there is a consensus amongst such experts.

The flaw you should be aiming at is the complete and outright
falsehood that they "tell us that AGW is the most likely explanation
for the warming that has been noted.".

They don't, so Trevor's claim fails on that basis.

Trevor will cite various papers and what not from various members,
committees and such like, but that will not prove his claim that the
organisations "tell us that AGW is the most likely explanation for the
warming that has been noted.".

Nonetheless, I have invited him to provide evidence of this claim.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:45:15 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Clearly not, otherwise you would not have made it a major focus of
your life to do so.

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:05:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Trevor, kindly substantiate your claim.

In an appropriate measure of detail.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Certainly:

http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes /
http://www.science.org.au/nova/091/091key.htm
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange /
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change /
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/climate/report-of-the-french-academy-of-sciences-on-global-warming /
http://www.leopoldina.org/en.html
http://www.oeaw.ac.at/limno/projects/detective.html
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=3bfd5526-9e7e-4666-aaa4-dba75fd4fc6a
http://www.vki.hu/workingpapers/wp-186.pdf
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/881_FacingUptoClimateChange.html
http://www.kva.se/Documents/Vetenskap_samhallet/Miljo_klimat/Yttranden/uttalande_klimat_en_090922.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html

That'll do you. I'm bored now.

Why did you want me to jump through hoops, when you already knew the
answers?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au







Re: OT GW
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:27:46 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.
States the position of others.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, says nothing about the organisations position.
States the position of others.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Absolutely no support whatsoever of your claim!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Absolutely no support whatsoever of your claim!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Reaching new lows, you brand the personal opinion of a columnist,
talking about the UK academy as substantiaing your claim of the
Canadian Academy telling us its position.

Laughable to see what masqeraudes as logic and fact in your head.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is not the view of the Hungarian Academy of Science on the matter
at hand.  It is a working paper that analyzes the impact of the EU
2020 climate change package.

This would appear to be a particularily foolish attempt to pretend
support of your position.

You have not even found the following organisations;
Royal Society of Canada,
Royal Danish Acadeny [sic] of Sciences and Letters,
 The Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences,  
Russian Academy of Sciences,

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Offers no support for your claim.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Completely supports your claim of the Swedish Academy.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

States a 66% chance of anthropogenic warming.  This is not "most
likely".  Claim denied.

So, you cited 17 specific examples and claimed more, and the grand
total of substantiation that you have provided is ONE.

This is a complete fail.

You must withdraw your claim immediately, if you wish to demonstrate
that you possess any integrity.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

and inadequate, it seems.

For someone who continually demands ("cite") proof of everything that
anyone else says to you, you are remarkably blase about your own
obligations to substantiate your claims.

In fact, your demands are so intense as to be rude, yet you think
nothing of making huge claims and offering utterly inadequate support
for them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There is little point in my stating "bullshit!" to you.  It would be
discourteous and it would demonstrate nothing.

The courteous thing to do is to ask you to substantiate your claim.
As you are obliged to do. It is also wise, for my knowledge of the
position of the organisations that you claim support your position may
be obsolete.

I might well have learned something.  On this occasion, giving you the
benefit of the doubt has not been rewarded, but I won't let that
dissuade me from remaining open to any relevant evidence you can
provide in future.





--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution or Craig Thomson.  Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped.  Theirs has to be one of the most spectacular
crashes in Australian political history.

And of course the wealth distribution tax will do absolutely nothing
to counter GW, which they knew all along.

--
John H

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would have thought it'd be *the* most spectacular. Even Labor party
members are talking about the party being eradicated.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The rot has been into the Labor Party for decades and the Liberals are
just a few years behind them.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Interesting that their former leader Latham wrote similar in his book
(I don't know if he mentioned the Liberals)
after leaving the ALP.

If nothing else, he was in a position to know a lot more about the
organisation than most.



Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


I have had the experience of brushing up against it a number of times.
Firstly to become a number in branch stacking(modern term). Secondly
when a community organisation became the battle ground between different
factions(nasty for employees). Also been educational to follow the
careers of the three party names iaround at the time.

Lastly a lot of the people we interacted with locally were in either
party and occassionally you have a quiet chat. We also witnessed the
disappearance of the labour party members from handing out at the local
booths over the years.


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They're already irrelevant, all of their own own making.  Rudd could
and should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS.  Whatever the
outcome, not only would Labor have maintained their credibility the
Green Slime would've been neutered to boot.

Given the same opportunity the next government will almost certainly
take it and Labor's own eradication will be complete.  All of which
probably makes the rescinding of the carbon tax a very real possibly!

--
John H

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Their demise started in the 80's when power factions started taking
power away from local party members and started annoiting their local
candidates.

The "Green Slime" has been growing for longer, very slowly. It does well
when large segments of the people are fed up with BOTH major parties.
Hint, slime is an essential biological phenomina(sp?).
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I sadly doubt it. <queue The International VBG>
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 > of the carbon tax a very real possibly!

Hahahahaha, i'll believe that when I see it.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which doesn't quite explain how they were able to maintain the most
successful federal Labor Government in Australian history from 1983 to
1996!...  And if weren't for the totally uninspiring Beazley would've
been back in office after just two terms in opposition (at most).
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They're suddenly doing exceptionally well as the loony left desert
Labor in droves (and aren't likely to return).  The Greens are to
Labor what One Nation was to the National Party... except that Gillard
has been stupid enough to form an alliance which has pissed off the
moderates, who then vote Liberal.  The biggest obstacle to an even
greater exodus is Abbott.

The only direction remaining for Labor is down!

--
John H

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Various reasons, especially when they had an enormous rusted on block.
It takes a few decas for the rust scales to get scrapped off. Also, they
did have some capable leadership who looked ahead and not at their polls.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


You might be right about Abbott.
Keep in mind that the Greens are actually replacing some of their old
supporters. The "tree huggers"(Kumbi Ah mob[sp?]) have become
disenchanted that it is now just like any other party.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Lol, is it that long ago that people have forgotten aout the thrice
risen souffle?  Wasn't that Keating about Howards chances?


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What's it got to with Howard's chances?  (Lazarus with a triple bypass
according to Keating.)
Labor's problems now go far deeper than leadership... credibility and
relevance just for starters!

--
John H

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think it is getting like that for all of them .  They fuck up
everything for us, but help their mates and we are forced to pay for
it.  I don't really see a point in having Government a lot more and
more.

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Probably.

One good thing to come out of the current political mess is that the
Greens have peaked, and come the next election they'll be acting as
ushers guiding what remains of the Labor party into the remotest corner
of the political wilderness.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I said, I live in hope.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Umm, John howards Malaysia solution was to take those with money, make
them do a 6 months course and them give them permanent residency no
questions asked.

Site Timeline