Select to expand quoteKamikuza said.."My argument" isn't actually about "the science", but the language you used to present or misrepresent it.holy guacamole said........It's possible paradox or you could demonstrate that you understand the scientific method and provide some evidence that the hypothesis you believe in explains the observations. But I think the MOST LIKELY explanation is that you have no such evidence.
I've mostly been pointing out the dogma-like rigidity of the position you held up -- until the past page or so. The language you use has changed.
I'm relieved that you admit that 'your argument' is purely about your opinion and interpretation of the semantics.
This is also a great clarification because it demonstrates my point further - that you have no evidence to support paradox's hypothesis whatsoever.
Hence your focus on wordplay. Happy to respond to your posts from now on purely on semantics.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I'm relieved that you admit that 'your argument' is purely about your opinion and interpretation of the semantics.
This is also a great clarification because it demonstrates my point further - that you have no evidence to support paradox's hypothesis whatsoever.
Hence your focus on wordplay. Happy to respond to your posts from now on purely on semantics.
No, "my argument" was about your inaccurate use of language, especially when describing "the science". It's not "interpretation" or "opinion", it was exactly as I explained previously. If you're going to insist that you're the science guy ... then don't play fast and loose with the "scientific method" 
That you have taken that onboard shows you understood what I was on about, and are now just dissembling with all this jibber-jabber and off-point deflection...
paradox has his own work to do, I'm not here to "support" his hypothesis. I've stated that at least once before too.
May I summarise?
We all (apart from the flat-earthers) accept that:
1. The climate has warmed
2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased dramatically due to human activity
3. The observed warming could be attributable to predominantly natural phenomena
4. The observed warming could be attributable to AGW
The IPCC states that the cause is predominantly AGW with 95% confidence, and Bono accepts this. Paradox feels that 95% confidence level is over-stated and should be somewhat lower.
Unless I've missed something, that's where we're at after 9 pages. Where to now?
Summarised neatly AUS, except that I am NOT 'bono'.
I guess in the absence of any credible evidence supporting the hypothesis for natural variability, only one hypothesis holds any merit - AGW.
I'm truly interested in any valid hypothesis and so it's disappointing when people go on about a hypothesis as if it's got much merit. I can only assume it's because they are attempting to dilute true scientific endeavour that disagrees with their ideology or business interests.
But what you've missed AUS is that I don't post links to debunked reports that have been long since demonstrated to be highly flawed in their methodology or erroneous in their results. That's what paradox does.
Pretty simple really.
So that's what the 9 pages was about for me, trying to draw blood from the AGW denier's stone. So far it's been a stone cold nothing.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
So that's what the 9 pages was about for me, trying to draw blood from the AGW denier's stone. So far it's been a stone cold nothing.
Because you're labelling people who don't share your stance in an identical manner ... as "deniers".
Which includes everyone who just doesn't share your faith in the IPCC but otherwise agree, to the nutters who actually deny actual science.
Of course you'll get nothing.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..
May I summarise?
We all (apart from the flat-earthers) accept that:
1. The climate has warmed
2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased dramatically due to human activity
3. The observed warming could be attributable to predominantly natural phenomena
4. The observed warming could be attributable to AGW
The IPCC states that the cause is predominantly AGW with 95% confidence, and Bono accepts this. Paradox feels that 95% confidence level is over-stated and should be somewhat lower.
Unless I've missed something, that's where we're at after 9 pages. Where to now?
3. seems unlikely. There's nothing natural to attribute it to.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said...
3. seems unlikely. There's nothing natural to attribute it to.
How about natural sources of greenhouse gases??
How about the sun?
What about clouds?
Volcanos?
What about natural changes to natural climate systems?
The whole planet is a living changing ball with complexities and interconnections we barely know or understand.
Believing every change of the natural world is due to coal is like attributing every change to an angry God.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..NotWal said...
3. seems unlikely. There's nothing natural to attribute it to.
How about natural sources of greenhouse gases??
How about the sun?
What about clouds?
Volcanos?
What about natural changes to natural climate systems?
The whole planet is a living changing ball with complexities and interconnections we barely know or understand.
Believing every change of the natural world is due to coal is like attributing every change to an angry God.
Yeah, nah
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..
So that's what the 9 pages was about for me, trying to draw blood from the AGW denier's stone. So far it's been a stone cold nothing.
Because you're labelling people who don't share your stance in an identical manner ... as "deniers".
Which includes everyone who just doesn't share your faith in the IPCC but otherwise agree, to the nutters who actually deny actual science.
Of course you'll get nothing.
You're called deniers because that's what you are. Trying to find any little chink in the armour of science to push your little ideological battle. Whether it's the 97%, the ipcc, the Mann bloke, anything. You're a denier because not long ago you lot were saying there was no warming....then you retreated to no warming since 1989, then it was we can't do anything anyway, then it was the sun,volcanoes, etc etc
there comes a time when people just say " look STFU..." and then you'll wine about " oh my freedom of speech!!!! They're trying to silence me"
for ****s sake
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..NotWal said...3. seems unlikely. There's nothing natural to attribute it to.
How about natural sources of greenhouse gases??
How about the sun?
What about clouds?
Volcanos?
What about natural changes to natural climate systems?
The whole planet is a living changing ball with complexities and interconnections we barely know or understand.
Believing every change of the natural world is due to coal is like attributing every change to an angry God.
All demonstrated to be negligible in support of the natural variability hypothesis. Scientists are just as interested in finding out the why and how as AGW deniers. The difference is that scientists are interested in truth and facts. Hence, the AGW theory holds the most merit by far.
Select to expand quotelog man said..You're called deniers because that's what you are. Trying to find any little chink in the armour of science to push your little ideological battle. Whether it's the 97%, the ipcc, the Mann bloke, anything. You're a denier because not long ago you lot were saying there was no warming....then you retreated to no warming since 1989, then it was we can't do anything anyway, then it was the sun,volcanoes, etc etcKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..
So that's what the 9 pages was about for me, trying to draw blood from the AGW denier's stone. So far it's been a stone cold nothing.
Because you're labelling people who don't share your stance in an identical manner ... as "deniers".
Which includes everyone who just doesn't share your faith in the IPCC but otherwise agree, to the nutters who actually deny actual science.
Of course you'll get nothing.
there comes a time when people just say " look STFU..." and then you'll wine about " oh my freedom of speech!!!! They're trying to silence me"
for ****s sake
Spot on.
Seriously, if someone could actually demonstrate the natural variability hypothesis I'd be very interested.
Until then I can only assume these people screaming "it's not AGW" are in denial of the weight of actual evidence.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..3. seems unlikely. There's nothing natural to attribute it to.AUS1111 said..
May I summarise?
We all (apart from the flat-earthers) accept that:
1. The climate has warmed
2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased dramatically due to human activity
3. The observed warming could be attributable to predominantly natural phenomena
4. The observed warming could be attributable to AGW
The IPCC states that the cause is predominantly AGW with 95% confidence, and Bono accepts this. Paradox feels that 95% confidence level is over-stated and should be somewhat lower.
Unless I've missed something, that's where we're at after 9 pages. Where to now?
And this has been my point all along. Just because it's happened long ago in the past, does not mean that's what's happening now.
That's a false hypothesis and totally anti-science in the absence of any evidence.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
You're called deniers because that's what you are. Trying to find any little chink in the armour of science to push your little ideological battle. Whether it's the 97%, the ipcc, the Mann bloke, anything. You're a denier because not long ago you lot were saying there was no warming....then you retreated to no warming since 1989, then it was we can't do anything anyway, then it was the sun,volcanoes, etc etc
there comes a time when people just say " look STFU..." and then you'll wine about " oh my freedom of speech!!!! They're trying to silence me"
for ****s sake
This is why you can be sure with 95% CI that anyone who unironically uses the term "denier" is an ideologically-driven anti-science blithering idiot.
That post is a great example of blithering idiocy because I've never said there was no warming, nor anything about the sun or 1989 or volcanoes etc etc.
That post is a further great example of blithering idiocy because I've explained the "97% of scientists" thing such that you could only continue to misunderstand it if you were doing so willfully.
That post is a great example of anti-science because finding gaps in the armor is what science is all about, and repeating the "argument from authority" fallacy over and over doesn't make it any more correct.
And this is an example of ideological-driven idiocy because ... well the whole thing is a giant strawman. Because not agreeing fully and completely is enough to get you lumped in with actual loonies who deny the facts.
For ****s sake. You've nothing to add (except ideologically-driven anti-science blithering idiocy) so look, just STFU.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Just because it's happened long ago in the past, does not mean that's what's happening now.
That's a false hypothesis and totally anti-science in the absence of any evidence.
Aww...and you were doing so well 
There's no such thing as a "false hypothesis". You don't need "evidence" to propose a hypothesis.
And just because something happened in the past, doesn't not mean that it's not what's happening now. Makes it more likely in fact.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
You're called deniers because that's what you are. Trying to find any little chink in the armour of science to push your little ideological battle. Whether it's the 97%, the ipcc, the Mann bloke, anything. You're a denier because not long ago you lot were saying there was no warming....then you retreated to no warming since 1989, then it was we can't do anything anyway, then it was the sun,volcanoes, etc etc
there comes a time when people just say " look STFU..." and then you'll wine about " oh my freedom of speech!!!! They're trying to silence me"
for ****s sake
This is why you can be sure with 95% CI that anyone who unironically uses the term "denier" is an ideologically-driven anti-science blithering idiot.
That post is a great example of blithering idiocy because I've never said there was no warming, nor anything about the sun or 1989 or volcanoes etc etc.
That post is a further great example of blithering idiocy because I've explained the "97% of scientists" thing such that you could only continue to misunderstand it if you were doing so willfully.
That post is a great example of anti-science because finding gaps in the armor is what science is all about, and repeating the "argument from authority" fallacy over and over doesn't make it any more correct.
And this is an example of ideological-driven idiocy because ... well the whole thing is a giant strawman. Because not agreeing fully and completely is enough to get you lumped in with actual loonies who deny the facts.
For ****s sake. You've nothing to add (except ideologically-driven anti-science blithering idiocy) so look, just STFU.
If you quack like a denier and walk like a denier......... well you know. If you're not really a denier I'm so very sorry you got called a terrible name....... but really you're as bad as any science denying loon. The reality is the world is facing a possible disaster and we must act, if you're going to stand on the sidelines and make pissy culture war points is it any wonder people aren't going to react sweetly to you and call you beastly names.
cry me a fricken river
Select to expand quotelog man said..
If you quack like a denier and walk like a denier......... well you know. If you're not really a denier I'm so very sorry you got called a terrible name....... but really you're as bad as any science denying loon. The reality is the world is facing a possible disaster and we must act, if you're going to stand on the sidelines and make pissy culture war points is it any wonder people aren't going to react sweetly to you and call you beastly names.
cry me a fricken river
Do tell -- what science have I denied?
Exactly what I denied, with evidence because we know how important that is to you.
I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up, would you...?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
If you quack like a denier and walk like a denier......... well you know. If you're not really a denier I'm so very sorry you got called a terrible name....... but really you're as bad as any science denying loon. The reality is the world is facing a possible disaster and we must act, if you're going to stand on the sidelines and make pissy culture war points is it any wonder people aren't going to react sweetly to you and call you beastly names.
cry me a fricken river
Do tell -- what science have I denied?
Exactly what I denied, with evidence because we know how important that is to you.
I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up, would you...?
Mate, I'm not interested in talking to you about your ever so interesting views on GW. thanks
Let me summarise even more succinctly.
The AGW deniers have so little of substance left to argue about, they have turned to arguing semantics.
Happy to leave it at that. Mother Earth cares not for AGW deniers arguing about semantics.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..
Just because it's happened long ago in the past, does not mean that's what's happening now.
That's a false hypothesis and totally anti-science in the absence of any evidence.
Aww...and you were doing so well
There's no such thing as a "false hypothesis". You don't need "evidence" to propose a hypothesis.
And just because something happened in the past, doesn't not mean that it's not what's happening now. Makes it more likely in fact.
To take that further, natural temperature variation is not a hypothesis, it's established fact. It's the underlying state that we know exists. As HG has admitted, Natural variation exists and what the warming we are currently seeing is not unprecendented. Therefore the scientific burden is to then establish proof that something else is also at play right now.
Accordingly the majority of efforts from scientific institutions at the moment is to provide evidence that something else is at play in addition to natural variation. ie AGW. There is no reward or point in continuing to prove something that we already know exists. Except perhaps in order to remind those so wrapped up (or invested) in the ongoing establishment of evidence of AGW that have forgotten about natural variance.
As HG mentions there is a body of evidence that has been put together to prove humans are contributing. This evidence has a lot of weight and the existence of mans contribution to global warming is pretty well established. Numerous studies have shown there is a high level of support in the scientific community that AGW exists and is influencing global temperatures. None of this is a surprise, nor is it challenged.
The only thing that is being challenged is the level of influence of both natural variance and human influence. Despite what some think, there is no where near any sort of scientific consensus on this.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
The AGW deniers have so little of substance left to argue about, they have turned to arguing semantics.
Talk about arguing semantics.....is there anyone on here who actually denies AGW is a thing?
Who are you talking about or to??
Again paradox, you're reducing this down to semantics by using the term "scientific consensus".
To emphasise your point about a burden of proof yes absolutely the burden of proof rests with the person proposing a hypothesis.
To date, very little evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the observed warming has anything to do with natural variance.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Talk about arguing semantics.....is there anyone on here who actually denies AGW is a thing? holy guacamole said..
The AGW deniers have so little of substance left to argue about, they have turned to arguing semantics.
Yes Tony Abbott.Select to expand quoteParadox said..Who are you talking about or to??holy guacamole said..
The AGW deniers have so little of substance left to argue about, they have turned to arguing semantics.
You accept that AGW is real but you dispute the amount that human GHG emissions contribute to the overall observed warming.
I say OK, where's your evidence that natural variance HAS ANY POSITIVE ROLE in the current warming.
Logically natural variance also leads to cooling, so it's just as possible that at present natural variance is trying to cool the atmosphere but, we're pumping so much GHG into the atmosphere that this is cancelling out the negative natural variance!
This hypothesis carries weight, since solar radiation is on a downward trend at present.
So in fact, natural variance, the sun of which is possibly the greatest contributor is trending negative, not positive.
Have you considered that paradox?
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
If you quack like a denier and walk like a denier......... well you know. If you're not really a denier I'm so very sorry you got called a terrible name....... but really you're as bad as any science denying loon. The reality is the world is facing a possible disaster and we must act, if you're going to stand on the sidelines and make pissy culture war points is it any wonder people aren't going to react sweetly to you and call you beastly names.
cry me a fricken river
Do tell -- what science have I denied?
Exactly what I denied, with evidence because we know how important that is to you.
I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up, would you...?
Mate, I'm not interested in talking to you about your ever so interesting views on GW. thanks
Mate, you don't have to talk to me about my views on anything.
You need to front up with evidence that I've denied any science on AGW.
If there's no quacking then there's no ducks. Which makes you a liar. Again.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Let me summarise even more succinctly.
The AGW deniers have so little of substance left to argue about, they have turned to arguing semantics.
Happy to leave it at that. Mother Earth cares not for AGW deniers arguing about semantics.
LOL you're just labeling anyone who points out your sloppy understanding of science as a denier.
"I keep making mistakes and you keep pointing then out .... therefore you're a denier"
Comedy gold!
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
If you quack like a denier and walk like a denier......... well you know. If you're not really a denier I'm so very sorry you got called a terrible name....... but really you're as bad as any science denying loon. The reality is the world is facing a possible disaster and we must act, if you're going to stand on the sidelines and make pissy culture war points is it any wonder people aren't going to react sweetly to you and call you beastly names.
cry me a fricken river
Do tell -- what science have I denied?
Exactly what I denied, with evidence because we know how important that is to you.
I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up, would you...?
Mate, I'm not interested in talking to you about your ever so interesting views on GW. thanks
If there's no quacking then there's no ducks. Which makes you a liar. Again.
"If there's no quacking then there's no ducks. Which makes you a liar. Again."
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
If you quack like a denier and walk like a denier......... well you know. If you're not really a denier I'm so very sorry you got called a terrible name....... but really you're as bad as any science denying loon. The reality is the world is facing a possible disaster and we must act, if you're going to stand on the sidelines and make pissy culture war points is it any wonder people aren't going to react sweetly to you and call you beastly names.
cry me a fricken river
Do tell -- what science have I denied?
Exactly what I denied, with evidence because we know how important that is to you.
I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up, would you...?
Mate, I'm not interested in talking to you about your ever so interesting views on GW. thanks
If there's no quacking then there's no ducks. Which makes you a liar. Again.
"If there's no quacking then there's no ducks. Which makes you a liar. Again."
Waiting for your evidence that I've denied science. Are we there yet?
