Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "IPCC report ‘not a proper scientific document’" video.

Your comment is a an example of the deficiency of the educational system but even better a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
7
@stevewiles7132 You weren't being sarcastic you were displaying a clear lack of understanding of anthropomorphic climate change.
4
Nobody is suggesting it is a scientific paper. It is however a summary of more than 14000 scientific papers published in the last five years. Ridd knows this and is deliberately being mischievous in his analysis.
2
Of course you have no evidence of any of this. Over 14000 scientific papers were submitted to the IPCC, these were read by 234 scientists and then summarised in its report. What makes more sense my clear and simple explanation or your wild conspiracy theory?
1
@Pozi_Drive I'm sure you work in a laboratory that does some dodgy stuff, that's why so many scientific papers are examined and summarised and why we just don't take one persons opinion and why we listen to a range of scientists.
1
@Pozi_Drive Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, deduction and then it goes around in circle. That's why I go to a doctor when I'm sick, an accountant for my taxes, and a plumber when my toilet backs up. So here is my choice 14000 plus scientific papers peer reviewed and then reviewed and summarised by 234 scientists or your worthless opinion. I know you think your smarter than all those scientists I'm somewhat more humble than that.
1
@Pozi_Drive You seem to be unable to mount any sort of coherent arguement, was there something in my reply you disagree with?
1
@Pozi_Drive Happy to have my spelling and grammar corrected, you though seem unwilling to provide any evidence for your assertions. An easily made assertion without evidence can as easily be dismissed without evidence.
1
Classic wild conspiracy theory.
1
@elainetalbot2947 Didn't even his yelling raise a little skepticism, tell you what show me a list of the communist countries that run the General Assembly of the UN, and provide for me the communist scientist that Australia appointed to the IPCC panel. The IPCC is in actuality the complete opposite of a communist regime and hold open elections for its board. This is all open to the public and normal common knowledge. The IPCC has been in existence for 33 years and is recognised by the Australian government and all of the Western democracies.
1
This is classic strawman tactics from Chris Kenny to deflect attention away from the science. No wonder he was an advisor to politicians.
1
@sharischwing-austen4011 How many of the 14000 plus scientific papers submitted to the IPCC in the last five years have you read?
1
@sharischwing-austen4011 So your answer should have read. No, I haven't read any of them as I wouldn't be able to understand but I'm so smart I know more than they do anyway, I just make up make my own facts. Your comment is classical Dunning-Kruger.
1
@sharischwing-austen4011 If by coward you mean I will not let people get away with blatantly false statements, then yes.
1
Your comment contained three logical fallacies an argument from Anecdotal, from Personal incredulity, and chuck in there a Genetic fallacy as well. Pretty embarrassing for you, but it's not to late to learn how to structure a properly thought out argument.
1
@pgraham28 My comment was not about the rise is ocean temperatures or the corresponding rise in ocean levels it was in regards as to the structure of Mergljo's argument. In your reply you have made one of the same fallacies. In arguing that you have not seen the river or ocean levels rise where you live you have committed a logical fallacy as well it is called anecdotal. The science of ocean temperatures and sea levels in common public knowledge and can be sourced from numerous scientific papers, but that is not my argument nor is it my opinion, my concern is the poor structure of Mergjlo argument and now yours as well.
1
@pgraham28 I'm am not a scientist my opinion on ocean temperatures and oceanography in general really doesn't matter. Your observations was fallacious. For tens of thousands of years humans observed the sun go around the earth and they were wrong. Here is one reference. Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise" -- WT Pfeffer et al., Science 2008.
1
@pgraham28 I enjoy discussing topics as well but there has to be a certain level of sensibility involved. Mergljo's comment was so ridden with informal fallacies I was compelled to comment. This is a quasi public forum and you shouldn't get away with saying rubbish.
1
@pgraham28 I agree you should be skeptical about what politicians say. So you have asserted quite a few things, that you have provided no evidence for and you seem to have just skipped over my point about personal observation, your observation and my opinion don't matter what matters is the independent science and that proves overwhelmingly to be that the planet has warmed artificially since industrialisation due to large amounts of CO2 be deposited into the atmosphere. Here is another reference. Southern hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases” – Shindell and Schmidt 2004, Geophysical Research Letters, 2004. I can go on for days giving you reference after reference of peer reviewed scientific papers of evidence of my opinion. If you are going to go down the road of hard solipsism ie your not going to believe anything only your self, then there is little point in me bothering to continue
1
@lorendjones On the contrary, pointing out how fallacious a statement is contributes to reducing the disinformation in a conversation
1
@typearce1823 What time frame are you talking about? but yes you are right in 4.2 billion years the geography of the planet has changed significantly.
1