Jedimaster
Your high academic learning should have taught you not to argue by way of
- assuming what is in issue
- appeal to absent authority, and
- personal argument.

But that is all you have offered here. Not only is it not scientific method, it doesn't even meet the minimum threshold for logical thought.

"I believe I have the skills to discern fact from conjecture and fantasy."

Unfortunately, the evidence shows that's just another unfalsifiable and therefore belief on your part.

Spindoc has posted a link to a letter asking questions which UTTERLY DISPROVE you. Spare us the tedium of your ignorance or dishonesty, and be so good as to answer them without further evasion will you?

Your failure to answer them, or further answer by way of logical fallacy, will be taken as an admission that you concede the general issue, and are COMPLETELY UNABLE to maintain any rational basis for your BELIEF that the people of the world face catastrophic man-made global warming which policy can improve.

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the warmists is scarifyingly disgraceful. You guys belong in a mediaeval monkery now ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

How about somebody answer whether ocean algae has been quantified and taken into account in AGW and IPCC science.

JF Aus,

“In the 1980s, oceanographer John Martin gathered these facts in his "iron hypothesis," which proposed that by fertilizing plankton growth with iron, global warming could be offset. Iron fertilization can indeed cause plankton "blooms" in HNLC waters, as several expeditions including Soiree (the Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiment) in February 1999 and SOFeX (the Southern Ocean Iron [Fe] Experiment) in January and February 2002 have proved by pouring dissolved iron into HNLC areas in the Southern Hemisphere.”

There’s lots more research out there on this topic, I’ll leave you to follow up on it.

Chris Lewis.

I was very happy to hear that you will take the opportunity to “read the IPCC reports and responses, it looks rather daunting and will take much reading and time” and that you are “eager to understand why there are such strong views against the global warming debate”.

Three points if I may. Firstly are you suggesting that you have not already read the IPCC reports or the contrary scientific opinions?

Secondly, in relation to “such strong views against the global warming debate”, those who very much wish to have this debate are skeptical of the current orthodoxy, those who wish us to accept the current orthodoxy, do not want this debate.

Thirdly, when you have reviewed the analysis of the IPCC reports, could you please get back to us and advise of what understanding you got from these?

Spindoc,

Thank you for reply and that very true answer. I will have to re-phrase my question. How about answering this.

Considering ocean produces over 50 percent of world oxygen, has increased sewage nutrient pollution proliferated living and dead ocean algae been taken into account in AGW, Climate Change and carbon tax science?

I would appreciate you suggestion to improve wording of the question if you know what I mean literally.

JM, I am still struggling. The Dutch East India Company was not a supplier of infrastructure, it was the owner of a monopoly licence to exploit the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and became a de facto colonialist as a result. I hope you're not advancing this as a good model of economic development.

But if you're not, what externalities are you referring to?

I'd have to say that I'm always suspicious when people start talking about "externalities". While they do exist they can be both negative and positive, are generally impossible to quantify, and are often raised as a reason for doing something when the business case doesn't stack up.

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to leave the forum. I've tried my best to keep you involved, but ultimately here we are having an argument about facts, and if you're not prepared to have that argument, then I guess there really is nothing left to be said.

As a general note on this thread. I'm finding a number of the comments sailing pretty close to abuse. Instead of name calling can we focus on the issues? I will remove the next comment that involves name calling, no matter how erudite the rest of it might be.