Alan Moran,

Great article, as always. I greatly appreciate your contributions. I suspect you have read the new paper by Canadian economist Ross McKitrick: "Climate policy implicatiopns of a hiatus in global warming"
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/climate-policy-implications-of-the-hiatus-in-global-warming.pdf

It’s great that we are beginning to get some expertise from outside the group-think that prevails among the climate orthodoxy, don’t you think?

Thank you Alan for that article which puts things in perspective.

This gets to the nub of what I have always found so unsatisfactory about the whole global warming meme.

When it all boils down to it, what this thing is all about, is the supposed need for governments to fine-tune the world's economy to the tune of about 2.5 percent.

That's it. That's ultimately what all that irritating boffin-blather over temperature statistics has been about.

*AS IF* the examination of temperature statistics - any more than of birds's gizzards - were capable of giving that conclusion!

As if the very concept of an "average" global temperature was meaningful in the first place. As if their pretension to know and to forecast losses in terms of "global GDP" were just to be swallowed whole. As if their privileged pronouncements about the political distribution of losses did not contain problematic assumptions greater than the original supposed problem. As if we were all to just blandly accept without question the knowledge, the competence, and the goodness of these geniuses to forcibly re-order the world according to their own imagination, handing out trillions in confiscated wealth here, and industrial-scale grievous losses to life, livelihood and liberty there.

The always unspoken underlying assumption is that government somehow has the intrinsic competence to solve the original economic problem - to allocate scarce resources to their most urgent and important ends. Of course if this assumption were correct, we wouldn't be justified in just a 2.5% adjustment, but a 100% abolition of private property in favour of coercive central planning.

Just to state their mind-bogglingly stupid assumption is to see the impossibly yawning gulf between the warmists and their ends.

Now having failed in theory, the warmists policies are going to fail in practice - leaving behind only a stubborn wrack of politically-imposed vested interests in corrupt ineffectuality: the state-protected profits of the curly-light-bulb makers, times a billion.

Another day another Global warming denials article on OLO.

When all is said and done, the criminal expropriation of all the massive waste and loss – all the junkets, all the departments, all the destruction of productive activity - that went into the whole global warming scare, will have gone unpunished. They will have gotten away with it scot free.

Not only that, many government departments will have permanently expanded on the back of it. The whole episode represents a significant further encroachment of the vampire economy against the productive economy.

The global warming scare now needs to be recognised as the biggest fraud in the history of the world. The mediaeval selling of indulgence pales into insignificance by comparison.

The moral of the story is, you can never give power to government and say “Limit yourself”. It’s never going to work. There is always be a tendency for those with power to use it on whatever pretext, and that means exploiting the weaker and enriching themselves at the expense of society.

What this shows is that even the most innocuous-seeming governmental activity – such as predicting the weather - can be turned to the cause of thieving and fraud by the powerful, grasping the property and attacking the liberty of the people based on lies and propaganda of the political class.

There is a need to extirpate this cancer root and branch. All climate agencies and policies should be abolished forthwith.

But alsom predicting the weather is not a legitimate function of government in the first place: the BOM should be abolished. Neither is broadcasting and media: the ABC should be sold off immediately – its partisan bias in the whole scam has been shameful. Neither is indoctrination of young people a legitimate function of government: state universities have been complicit in this whole mediaeval witch-hunt from the start, and should also be phased out.

If not, they will only keep all their ill-gotten gains and do it over all again on some other pretext in the next few years.

Read about the deep ocean in context http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

The ocean is warming, but not at great depth. Don't get too excited about a hiatus that is a blip in the unprecedented rate of average global surface temperature that has occurred over the last 150 years of this interglacial period.

In the last ice age, glaciation over New York was a mile deep and average global surface temperature was only 5 degrees lower than today. Humanity, where it could exist, was at hunter-gatherer status. If warming proceeds to 5 degrees higher than today should we expect a return to this status? There will be upheaval and dislocation such as humanity has not known. To understand a little of the upheaval caused by just a 3/4 degree reduction in global temperature see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Of course, that cold year was a sudden change, while we have time to adapt, however the magnitude of change we won't adapt to. Economists touting positive cost-benefit analyses of GW assume a steady ride up-temperature with no major dislocation, while McKitrick assumes, further, the current hiatus is meaningful and demands a mute response to the ~130 years of unprecedented rate of temperature rise preceding it.

Ocean temperature is rising, just not where it's very deep

Thanks for this article, Alan, a straightforward statement of the truth about the AGW fraud. The fraud-backers are stirred up; the hound is right, the deniers are here, and he is one of them. The realists have nothing to deny.

The UN will have to find another fraud to promote. AGW is dead

IPCC calculations can be inherently worthless, when measured against historical fact, and the open book that is the paleontological record!
This record tells us we must not allow Ambient temperatures to rise beyond 2C.
Given the last time that happened, the tundra/permafrost melted, releasing enough carbon and or methane, to push ambient temperatures up by around a total 5C.
You think a rise of 5C not too much of a problem?
Imagine a windswept world, where the UK and virtually all similar latitudes are salt laden windswept deserts, regularly traversed by winds exceeding 300 KLMS PH!
Or regular force seven and eight storms; and rainfall measured in metres per day!
What would happen to the topsoil and all that depended on it then?
Imagine a world where no grassland or forest is possible, or barely possible, let alone cereal crops!
What would anyone or anything eat then?
What if sea levels rise to around 60-70- metres!
Yes it could be seen as alarmist, if it wasn't already part of known archaeological history. And just because of a 5C increase in average ambient temperatures!
All we need do, is change our economies over to cheaper than coal economy improving thorium, or vastly cheaper homemade endlessly sustainable, biogas. It's too easy!
Biogas (methane) works nearly as well as hydrogen in modern ceramic fuel cells!
And given the burn is replaced by the fuel cell's chemical reaction, the exhaust product is mostly water vapor.
We just need to crack on with these ECONOMY IMPROVING changes, rather than mutter like mad monks, moribund mantras, none more imbecilic, given the possible consequences; than, the government has no business in business.
Saving lives and the economy, is very much their business, and they need to do what it takes, to do just that!
Even if that means, resuming former CORE responsibilities, and getting back into the power/cash cow essential service business!
As opposed to trying to duck shove their historical responsibilities and privatize everything not nailed down!
Rhrosty.

"And given the burn is replaced by the fuel cell's chemical reaction, the exhaust product is mostly water vapor"

The products are the same as combustion products, CO2 and H2O

Rhosty, have you not noticed that human emissions cannot be shown to have any measurable effect on climate. There is no reason to prevent emissions of carbon dioxide.

Have you not noticed that the increase of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, falsely asserted to be human caused, did not result in the warming predicted by the fraud-backers, whose lies you have repeated in your post?

The increase in CO2 has improved crop production world wide, increased plant life and caused greening of huge deserts.

What makes you write such nonsense?

Luciferase. The products may well be the same, but the (inverse) proportions are not! Repeat, mostly water vapor!
What are you afraid of?
Some verifiable facts perhaps?

LL lies? There's stacked to the ceiling, walls of them, in most university libraries!
See paleontologist section! All universities stock some!
Just be sure not to try to read too many big words, it might hurt your brain, or even cause your cerebral cortex, providing you actually have one, to burn and smoke, and maybe even go into premature melt down.
Albeit, judging from you extremely ignorant comments, that may have already occurred!?
Lies LL?
Okay,[shoot the messenger} vile villain, if you want I'll repeat a few of yours, if I can find the time to search through a veritable library of them, if only to eliminate the rest of the, par for the course, (play the man not the ball) risible rubbish!
Is impugning my personal integrity the very best you can do as scientific rebuttal!? Really? You're sure?
Then go for it tiger, attack the old man in the wheelchair; the only one looking really really stupid and moronic is you!
However, if you care to dish up that infantile impugning again, I just might ignore it with the absolute indefatigable contempt it surely deserves!
Rhrosty.

Thanks for the comments Peter and others.

The issues are so obvious that the other side has ceased debating them except to scream sovereign risk and the possibility of The Day After Tomorrow fantasies.

But the dead weight continues

Rhostry, not trying to undermine, just correcting your statement. Oxygen is the oxidant in a fuel cell and the hydrocarbon is the reductant. The proportion of water to CO2 is the same as for combustion.

You are correct only in respect of a hydrogen fuel cell where hydrogen is the reductant. H2O is the only product in that case.

Alan Moran (alanjohn?), your focus on the hiatus and upon NASA's deep ocean paper is typical. Consideration ALL the facts points to a need for action. When surface temperature resumes its upward thrust what'll it be then, more wait and see talk about whether there will be another hiatus? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/s_07202009_520.gif

Oh, well argued Cobber The Hound! Won me right over.........yes, I know it is the lowest form of wit...

The IPCC drew on more than the three articles mentioned. There are 18 articles covered in Table 10.B.1 here http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FGDall.pdf

The estimated range of impacts range from a 2.3% increase for a 1.0 degree increase in temperature to a 4.6% decrease for a 4.9 degree increase in temperature. We have almost reached the 1.0 degree increase, so any further increase in temperature is going to start having negative impacts on the economy.

Luciferase. Atomically, lighter than air methane, is mostly hydrogen atoms with a few carbon atoms added to make the methane moecule.
And that is why it works nearly as well as hydrogen in modern fuel cells, (for a lot less money) and why the exhaust product is mostly water vapor!
Simply put, the Methane to electricity, via the ceramic fuel cell has nearly the highest energy coefficient in the world, at 80%, or four times higher than coal, once thought to be the cheapest energy after hydro!
But even that is now wrong, and both the latter easily beaten by Thorium connected to micro grids.
Which as combination, costs less than half the current wholesale cost of coal fired power.
I realize that some people are welded to coal fired power for personal economic reasons?
But we as an economy, must do vastly better, if only to repatriate our purloined economic sovereignty; and along with that, a high tech manufacture industry, the rest of the world simply can't compete with!
And a set of very palatable economic circumstances, made even more palatable by genuine tax reform, that gives us the lowest real tax rate in the developed world.
None of what I have suggested harms us or our economy, but quite massively supports/grows it!
If massively improved economic circumstances/growth are any part of any problem, I'd like to know what you think they might be?
And where's the actual harm in reducing our carbon production, but particularly, when other nations, put a price on it, and then use that as an excuse to put up tariff barriers on any/all carbon affected trade goods!
And if our action also helps to reduce permafrost/tundra/ice melts, that just can't be seen as a bad thing on so many counts!
So, where's the problem?
Domestic power at least four times cheaper than what we are shelling out now?
Moreover, Thorium needs miners, and power station operators as well!
Rhrosty.

Here is a link to rough calculations of a physicist I respect:

http://www.phys-l.org/archives/2014/10_2014/msg00054.html
Known fossil fuel reserves, if combusted, will put 502 gigatons of CO2 in the environment. Accordingly, that will result in
"--> 252 Gt in the atmosphere
--> 126 ppm on top of what we have now
--> 526 ppm total
--> 0.91 doublings relative to pre-industrial 280 ppm
--> 4.00 °C temperature rise "


His conclusion, "That's so far beyond what is considered "extremely dangerous" that I don't even have a name for it.

Even if we stop burning fuel today, 2 degrees is built in, and, new reserves are discovered every year. Shouldn't we be be trying NOW to do something about this problem?

Another point, if the cost of carbon sequestration is built into fossil fuel power generation, nuclear and renewables are cheaper. Why should we allow an industry to make money without cleaning up as it goes? Perhaps we should levy then clean it up ourselves while leaving the free market to reign. Mmmm, a price on carbon perhaps?

Absolute rubbish, Lucifer, as usual. The current increase in CO2 has not resulted in any warming, so the calculation of temperature rise is nonsense:

“OCTOBER 1 marked an important anniversary: 18 years during which the earth average temperature has remained unchanged.
Satellite data available from 1988 has allowed very precise measurements of global temperatures. These at first confirmed a warming trend.
But the satellite recordings, greeted with such enthusiastic fanfare by the warmist fraternity, have, for the past 18 years, bitten the hand that fed them.
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the inconvenient truth of this data. But NASA has just reported that there is no evidence that the increased heat is hiding in the deep oceans.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/ipcc-calculations-show-global-warming-wont-be-harmful-if-it-resumes/story-e6frg6zo-1227083037892

Lucerface,

The most recent observation based estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is about 1.8 C and transient climate response (TCR) is about 1.3 C. TCR is what should be used for estimating the effect of emissions over 70 years. At present, CO2 concentration is about 400 ppmv. An increase from 400 to 526 ppmv by 2085 (70 years) would give a temp increase of approx  0.5ºC, not  4ºC.

Temp change = 1.3ºC * ln(526/400) / ln(2) = 0.5ºC

Not scary at all. Perhaps more beneficial than harmful.

Have you read Ross McKitricks, paper (see link in first comment on this thread)?

Leo,

".....The current increase in CO2 has not resulted in any warming..."

Alan's reference was to NASA not finding warming in the deep ocean.

The same study found that there was plenty of warming in the "top half" of the world's oceans.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

"Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."

" Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

Interesting that you take the cue from Alan's article - referencing the NASA study - to run your usual spiel, but ignore the other findings which point to continued warming of the top layer of oceans.

Seems to be that you (and others) like the bits in the study that match your spiel, but are happy to ignore those that don't?

Peter,

Firstly I'd quibble over the 1.3 degree TCR figure. This may be helpful to explain http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/03/scientists-challenge-climate-skeptic-claims-that-un-panel-overestimates-warming/

Whatever, the calculation by the physicist I linked to was not about determining a transient position at 2085 but what the final outcome will be once the total climate system equilibrates. He calculates a 4 degree rise from the beginning of the industrial revolution and I say this is reason enough to act, rather than feeling comfy about where things may stand at 2085.

As an aside, TCR is the increase in 20-year mean global temperature over a 70 year timeframe during which CO2 concentrations, rising throughout at 1% p.a. compound, double. My interpretation of this, and I stand to be corrected, is that the 0.5 degree figure you calculate (I figure ~0.7 with 1.8 TCR) is not a peak figure but a 20 year mean for the years leading to 2085. The average surface temperature for 2085 itself will be higher than the mean.

McKitrick's paper makes use of TCR because T (transient) is the mindset of an economist compared with a physicist's. The former stares at the steering wheel while the latter at the road into the distance.

Lucerface,you are burying the simple facts in a pile of gobbledygook.

"--> 0.91 doublings relative to pre-industrial 280 ppm
--> 4.00 °C temperature rise "

That's an ECS > 4 C (2xCO2). That's not the median value from either the models or the observational estimates, it's outside 95% of observational estimates and near the top 95% of modeller's estimates. So, its a massive cherry pick, exaggeration.

It's also ridiculous to be arguing about effects in >300 years time. Policies are not sustainable for even a decade unless they are economically sustainable.

ECS is coming down. There is mounting evidence that the models are running too hot. The ECS and TCR estimates based on observational data are giving lower estimates than the models and the evidence has been mounting since before the 2007 IPCC AR4 report.

Economists, not scientists, inform policy analysis. Scientists have little understanding about what information is relevant for policy analysis,

It's a sign of motivated reasoning to dismiss paper's like McKitrick's on the basis you don't like what it says. The problem is we've had far too much group-think on CAGW for far too long. We desperately need good analyses from conservatives to give us some rational economic analyses to balance the climate cultists.

I'd urge you to read McKitrick's paper carefully, with open mind and consider the alternative perspective offered. You need to be able to start to recognise why the alarmists are not getting their point across to the 97% of world population who have other priorities than what your cult believes is the most important issue facing mankind.

"That's an ECS > 4 C (2xCO2)" No, it's using 3. degrees 6 based on the Holden paper quoted by the physicist. http://www.mucm.ac.uk/Pages/Downloads/Other_Papers_Reports/RW%20clim%20dym%20probabilistic%20calibration%20GENIE%201%20rcvd%20082009.pdf which roughly concurs with IPCC AR5. The 4 degree calculation sums the T change since the Industrial revolution with the projection using the Holden figure.

"It's also ridiculous to be arguing about effects in >300 years time." It seems more ridiculous not to concern ourselves with catastrophic future outcomes which, BTW, are not guaranteed to come gradually and far into the future.

Further to come (immediately if my post limit allows)

"Policies are not sustainable for even a decade unless they are economically sustainable." Then humanity will pay the price. Action on CO2 is sustainable if the world acts together, which you are highly skeptical about, I know. taht's a different discussion.

"ECS is coming down. There is mounting evidence that the models are running too hot. The ECS and TCR estimates based on observational data are giving lower estimates than the models and the evidence has been mounting since before the 2007 IPCC AR4 report." I'll take my cue from all peer reviewed papers on that (and IPCC analysis), not just those cited by McKintrick (who excludes Holden), whose bias is clear in many parts of his paper, including where he says,

"In a low-sensitivity model, GHG emissions lead only to minor changes in temperature, so the socioeconomic costs associated with the emissions must also be minimal. In a high-sensitivity model, large temperature changes would occur, so marginal economic damages of CO2 emissions must be larger"

Marginal? At what level of sensitivity will he accept catastrophe as an outcome? This is the myopia of the economists. What if a 3.6 degree figure (or higher) is right. Where is evidence of the precautionary principle in economists' thinking?

cont'd

"Economists, not scientists, inform policy analysis. Scientists have little understanding about what information is relevant for policy analysis" A case to listen to scientists more than economists. There's always a gap between the ideal and the achievable, but don't underestimate scientists' abilities to understand economic arguments. Politics needs more scientists.

"It's a sign of motivated reasoning to dismiss paper's like McKitrick's on the basis you don't like what it says" The basic premise is too absurd to read much beyond, grasping at a spurious case for a low TCR, a hiatus, and ignoring the signs the earth continues warming (albeit not currently much at the surface). There is also the rejection of the CO2 hypothesis and AGW buried in there too. Should we ever stop burning fossil fuels?

"The problem is we've had far too much group-think on CAGW for far too long. We desperately need good analyses from conservatives to give us some rational economic analyses to balance the climate cultists." I'll pass on that one, it smacks of motivated reasoning.

"I'd urge you to read McKitrick's paper carefully, with open mind and consider the alternative perspective offered" It isn't written with an open mind, but I've read it.

"You need to be able to start to recognise why the alarmists are not getting their point across to the 97% of world population who have other priorities than what your cult believes is the most important issue facing mankind" The point is getting across, both by observation and argument, and and will better do so when powerful people with vested interests stop running interference.

Peter, you've made got sense to me on several issues, but not this one.

Lucerface,,
""That's an ECS > 4 C (2xCO2)" No, it's using 3. degrees 6 based on the Holden paper quoted by the physicist."

ECS means the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. You said:
0.91 doublings --> 4.00 °C temperature rise "

For that to be correct, ECS >4 C.

Understand now?

This discussion is pointless.

Yes, Peter, checking the calculation an ECS above 4 is necessary whereas, as I'd read it, a figure of 3.6 was applied together with warming in the pipeline from CO2 already emitted. So, I agree with you on this.

Sorry if the rest is pointless to you. I feel that too when economists see a scale of warming as a continuum to be dealt with on a pay-as-you-go basis, as if we can back up when we choose, while cherry-picking sensitivity studies and ignoring non-surface warming, rather than taking a precautionary, prophylactic approach.

Best wishes

Luciferase
You've already lost the entire argument because you're unable to show any rational basis for your support for climate policy, remember?

That's what you ran away from defending without answering what proves you wrong, remember?

All
We keep seeing Luciferases tactice from all the warmists.

When faced with the fact that they are unable to defend their argument - because they are unable to prove what is in issue - they just leave that thread, and then re-appear in another thread re-asserting what they cannot defend, agitating subsidiary and secondary issues when they knows perfectly well that they can't defend the general propositions on which their entire argument depends.

We have demonstrated over and over again that the warmists have nothing but an endless train of intellectual incoherence. Nothing ever adds up to the chain of reasoning that would be necessary to justify their claims. When confronted, they just pretend that all the issues don't exist, that any doubt automatically counts in their own favour, and that economic scarcity counts on one side of the equation but not the other. When challenged on these double standards, they flee into every category of nonsense, illogic, and evasion imaginable; and just keep endlessly coming up with more of the same bullsh!t.

The whole catastrophic man-made global warming meme is just a stupid and dishonest belief system, and that's the end of the matter.

It continues to exist not because science supports it - (what's not rational cannot be scientific) - but because
a) government support it to the tune of about a billion dollars a day because it suits their interests, and
b) useful idiots support it.

Unlike warmair and Poirot, who have conceded that dishonesty is the basis of their support for the AGW fraud, Luciferase and Agronomist continue putting forward nonsense, rather than face the fact that their assertions are based on dishonesty, and not science.

They can only wait for the next United Nations fraud, to which they can lend their dishonest support.

AGW is dead

Yar, Leo...you're not much better than JKJ.

We can always depend of your "argument" (and I use that term loosely)..which invariably comprises of accusing fellow posters of "dishonesty and fraud".

That's about the size of it from Leo....

Blocks his ears - and sprinkles derision throughout his post.

Voila!....he's proved it's all a fraud.

(Scintillating stuff)

I remember JKJ, and my argument remains unchanged.

At the moment, the surface T hiatus, the sensitivity determinations coming from various papers all in dispute, and even NASA's latest pronouncement on deep ocean T (forget the upper levels are still warming) have deniers cock-a-hoop. (Just an aside here, where is the heat coming from that warms the upper ocean if it's not coming from down below? And for poor old LL, why do skeptics talk of climate sensitivity if the greenhouse effect is false science? Just saying)

The McKitrick piece is typical skeptic stuff, basically saying we should wait and see and pay any cost on the fly should T rise rather than taking a prophylactic approach. Catastrophe is just part of a wider continuum to economists, you just have to throw money at it (once the problem is acknowledged, not the skeptics' strong suite).

And don't oilers love it: https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/low-climate-sensitivity-accumulating/ : “But while the IPCC chooses to look the other way, the scientific evidence supporting low equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to pile up…. This is all around good news, for it means that we can focus more on expanding energy access (via fossil fuels) around the world rather than curtail our energy growth.”

Just what if climate sensitivity happens to be at the upper end of the range of ALL forecasts (not just McKitricks chosen few of dozens). Just what if heat building into the oceans finds its way in a hurry into surface T, just as it has done in reverse to bring about the current hiatus? As ocean T and acidity rises it's ability to sequestrate CO2 falls (while causing its own problems). There's a whole lot going on here to which skeptics want us to simply throw money at if/when things turn against us (they already are, but skeptics wont acknowledge it. The rate of T rise over 150 years is unprecedented).

It's a little analogous to the IS problem, will we see the problem and respond before a tipping point is reached? A little prophylaxis goes a long way. A stitch in time saves nine.......

Further too, and this for you JKJ, any cost-benefit analysis must accept a range of ECS and not necessarily just work to the peak in that range. This is because the the greatest costs are at the top of the ECS range

This would need individual CBA's at a the range extremities and number of temperature points within it, followed by interpolation to create a function that can be integrated.

Which range should be adopted? I think we have to look at all the ranges, not just those focused high or low, coming from respected mainstream peer reviewed literature. Otherwise, we might go with IPCC's AR5 range, which leaves everybody's bets on the table.

I'm confident that if a study were done in this way, it would inform public policy by demonstrating a need for global prophylaxis from an economic perspective, not a pay-as-we go (suck'n'see) approach.

Perhaps you could pack your invective

Come on Luciferase, the taxpayers of the developed world are spending a billion dollars a day on this rubbish. Just how much failed research does it take to prove to you people that there is nothing to find, & no proof of the theory exists, because the theory is rubbish.

We can now see quite clearly it was only ever a vehicle for the elites, & the UN to gain control & wind back what they see as the wasteful comfort enjoyed by us, the pesants of today.

They are horrified that a mere tradesman should have cars, air conditioning, travel & all the other niceties previously available only to them.

"Perhaps you could pack your invective"

Perhaps you could stop advocating killing people, and then I'll pack my invective against your violent irrationality.

If you don't understand that the policies you advocate have real-world consequences for the lives, livelihoods and liberty of real people, then perhaps you should stop assuming you're right from the outset, and actually *think* about what you're saying.

"I'm confident that if a study were done in this way, it would inform public policy by demonstrating a need for global prophylaxis from an economic perspective, not a pay-as-we go (suck'n'see) approach."

Well that's what's in issue isn't it?

So all you're doing is telling us that you assume you're right when you can't establish any reason, and do not have the data, to establish that you are.

What I'm asking you to do, is prove it.

Go ahead please:
1. What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):
2. how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
3. How have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.

Poirot
My argument does not consist of calling my opponents frauds. It consists of asking questions that will prove me wrong and them right, observing that they consistently refuse to answer, and observing that they instead lard their replies with every kind of diversion as you have just done. Your dishonesty is my conclusion, not my premise: that jibe was just another dishonest misrepresentation on your part, that still leaves you having proved nothing relevant about CAGW.

JKJ,

".....that still leaves you having proved nothing relevant about CAGW."

Come off it.

If you (and others) were genuinely interested in the veracity of climate science - or had any real expertise on the subject or any understanding of the intricacies it would take to convince you...you wouldn't be aiming to discuss it on a site like OLO which mainly hosts laymen.

You come here to lard on your spiel because you know you're unlikely to come across a real scientist (and if one does occasionally deign to turn up here - he or she is chased away smartly by one or more of the hordes of abusive "skeptics" after having his/her information pilloried)

That's the way it works on non-science forums.

JKJ,

"Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour...."

Many, many books have been written on the impact of rising global surface temperature eg http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/6.abstract

The 2 degree level, which is dangerous enough is now inevitable, http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full . if you're short of time, a toilet read highlights but a few amerocentric matters of concern, http://www.businessinsider.com.au/terrible-effects-of-climate-change-2014-10

I advocate global action on emissions which you say is advocating killing people. Really? So inaction will result in saving lives, right? Sorry, but there is a tsunami the size of Everest of scientific opinion against you on that. Educate yourself before you concede the climatology to me.

The design of public policy always has winners and losers, but is for the greater good. Your insistence on a laissez-faire approach ensures immense future misery for all.

Luciferase

"The design of public policy always has winners and losers, but is for the greater good.
Your insistence on a laissez-faire approach ensures immense future misery for all."

Well that's the issue isn't it? That's what we're trying to determine one way or the other.

You're arguing that policy will, in short, produce a net benefit. And I'm arguing that there is no rational basis for that belief, and challenging you to demonstrate it.

If you can't, it means we're entitled to conclude that your belief system is irrational. And since you already knew this from encountering my same disproof in a prior thread, and being similarly totally incapable of proving your case or disproving mine, therefore we are entitled to conclude that you are being dishonest as well.

So stop trying to squirm out of, and answer the questions that prove either you or me wrong. Merely repeating your belief, as you have just done, proves my argument and fails to demonstrate yours.

Go ahead please:

1. What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):

2. how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.

3. How have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with? Show your workings.

Poirot
Try to make a post relevant to the topic?

Poirot has presented her addle-brained perception of my comment on fraud –backers.” invariably comprises of accusing fellow posters of "dishonesty and fraud".That's about the size of it from Leo....”
Science shows that the human effect on climate is trivial and not measurable. A representation that global warming is human caused has no basis in science, so is a fraudulent representation. Poirot has put up no rational basis to oppose this, but attempts to ridicule my soundly based assertion.
If she, or lucerfase have any basis to refute this they should refer us to the science which demonstrates a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Their failure to raise any opposition on a rational basis, makes them fraud supporters.
A convenient summary of the current science:
“Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 285 parts per million 250 years ago to about 380 ppm today. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas -- it holds heat in the atmosphere -- so if humans are generating more, it should have a warming effect.
But probably not much of one. Greenhouse gases comprise less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere; carbon dioxide is less than 4 percent of greenhouse gases; 96 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by Mother Nature.
Compared to variations in solar radiation and other natural forces, the effect of greenhouse gases on climate is trivial.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275

Poirot
With science, when the data don't support the theory, you keep the data and throw out the theory. With religion, when the data don't support the theory, you keep the theory and throw out the data.

What you've got is religion.

Luciferase
Please answer the questions.

1. What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):

2. how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.

3. How have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with? Show your workings.

JKJ,

When you've got the generic spiel and don't have the knowledge or expertise, you throw out the knowledge and expertise and keep the generic spiel.

Then you have JKJ

Sorry about that rushed post, JKJ.

Obviously if you don't have the knowledge or expertise to begin with - then you can't throw it out.

But you get my drift.

: )

Poirot

The Pope is an expert on the Virgin Birth. If the facts don't fit the theory, and you keep harping on the theory, you've got religion, not science, and it doesn't matter who's doing it, what they call themselves, and what kind of hat they're wearing.

1. What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):

2. how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.

3. How have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with? Show your workings.

JKJ. I cannot see the point in asking what information would induce fraud-backers to relinquish their support of the AGW fraud. They can put forward no scientific basis, for their position, so there is nothing to be countered.
You would have to convince them that it is preferable to be honest rather than dishonest. Poirot is a lefty, so forget that. Luciferase has failed to refer us to any science to support AGW, so obviously is dishonest in his backing of the fraud. He has put forward no alternate basis; he simply ignores the science, and adopts his stance irrationally.

Ho Hum...Leo's at it again....

How to Prove Climate Change is a Fraud 101

Simply accuse everyone who argues against you of being dishonest!

(and if you can also paste them as being a "leftie" and "dishonest" it's doubly proven!)

Whackydoo!

True to form, Poirot posts no science or rational assertion to support her backing of AGW.
She has only her standard worn out ad hominem to repeat.
Remember in 2010 when the fraud-backers said that children born after that time would not see snow in their lifetime because of global warming?