Bonmot
Can you see how the Royal Society quote does not answer any of the issues raised here, and repeats all the defects of methodology that I have remarked?

1. Climatology

“There is strong evidence….”
It’s just that no-one can cite a peer-reviewed paper showing temperature measurements proving the existence of the tropospheric hotspot, on which the whole belief system depends?

Besides, there is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have seen a profusion of animal and plant life.

But even taken at its worst, all it says is that temperatures have been going up, and this *may* have serious consequences. So what? It *may* not, and it may have serious *positive* consequences. The RS quote is no authority for any conclusion favourable to your argument.

2. Knowledge of upsides versus downsides of AGW
“Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.”

And that is to speak only of the uncertainties of *fact*. But there’s an even bigger problem as to the *values* attached to such facts.

Nothing in the RS excerpt pretends even to begin to know the upsides versus downsides of AGW, nor how the RS could know them.

But the raw factual data of such a study would be *judgments of value* subjective to billions of people dispersed throughout the world, universally discounted for futurity, and changing all the time. The warmists appear unaware of the great chasm between the knowledge set they presume to have, and the knowledge set they would need to have for their argument to be minimally valid.

“Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge.”

This sentence is ambiguous. It could mean that *if* policy choices are to be made at all, they must be in the absence of perfect knowlege. Or it could mean policy choices have to be made, and in the absence of perfect knowledge.

(cont.)

But it seems to be saying that policy choices have to be made about climate change in the absence of perfect knowledge, doesn’t it? It’s not obviously countenancing taking *no* policy action, is it? (Therefore it assumes what’s in issue and is therefore illogical and unscientific).

But here's the rub. So far, we are still waiting for any advocate of AGW policy action to come up with any rational justification of the proposition that there should be policy action in the first place. Your methodology is to assume it, and then when asked to show reason, you show *authority* who themselves have patently *assumed* it!

“However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.”
But hang on. The RS authority you quote has not begun to establish that the seriously bad consequences outweigh the seriously good. Nothing he said has even begun to address that issue, let alone shown reason to conclude in favour of policy action.

But it gets worse, and even less rational. Just because there are important decisions to be be made, does *not* mean that they should be made by the state on the basis of admittedly imperfect data and evaluations, rather than by all the affected people
a) whose total knowledge set is astronomically greater than that of the state, and
b) who have the critical data set that the state is entirely missing, namely knowledge of their own subjective values and time preferences.

But the issue is *whether* there should be policy action. So in that last sentence, the RS shows that it is assuming there should be! Thus you are only proving my point - this circular, uncritical, fallacious methodology is riddled throughout the warmist movement even at the highest levels. Being illogical, it’s not “science” – it’s groupthink, and self-interested groupthink at that, as they then go on to prove.

“Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.”

Translation: don’t stop channeling confiscated money into our pockets – and we won’t stop putting the frighteners on you!

Now we see why the whole meme just happens to be government-funded. They don’t produce goods that people are willing to pay for. They produce bads for which the payments on which they depend must extorted.

“'naysayers' … want to pull the plug”

I presume you mean cut off further tax funding. But cutting funding wouldn’t mean discontinuing climate science obviously. Because you, and Anthony, and everyone else who agrees with you as to the the value and importance of climate science would supply the funding *voluntarily*, wouldn’t you?

Bonmot? You *would* fund it voluntarily wouldn’t you?

Oh you mean it *is* about the money after all!

3. Knowledge of upsides versus downsides of policy action
“[proposed policy or funding] that will further … drive the world to more sustainable energy use.”

And here we come to the warmists’ third pons asinorum.

Given that the raw data set for the critical questions - of human value - comprise the constantly-changing and subjective value judgments and time preferences of billions of dispersed human beings, how would you rationally demonstrate that the upsides of a given policy outweigh the downsides?

How do you know that any given policy to promote “more sustainable energy use” will not have unintended negative consequences worse than the original problem - even considered from the standpoint of the advocates of such policies - after all upsides and downsides both ways are taken into account?

Explain how you are going to know that? Show your workings.

“Ummm, Peter ... Tom Tiddler is in fact the author (Tim Curtin) of this article.
Going by your own fallacies, you (like he) are a legend in your own mind.”

So when we ask the advocates of a carbon tax how they justify cutting food production when millions of people are going hungry, after all their circularity is dismissed the last-ditch argument they can come up with, is that I called someone Tom when I should have said Tim.

That’s it.

Anthony
You remark that the opponents insult you, however you’re advocating actually physically threatening people with unprovoked aggression to get what you want, so their mere insults should be the least of your worries.

What account have you taken of the possible, or probable human suffering as a consequence of the policies you advocate? Does it concern you that people may die – possibly in large numbers – as a result of the policies you advocate?

Peter Hume, I was addressing Anthonyve. Whilst your apparent paranoia is telling, it's not about you, really.

Despite your latest 4-post rant ... you confused the author of this article (a number of times) with a so called "warmist" when he obviously is not.

Btw, the so called 'hot-spot' you keep banging on about is NOT a signature of AGW, it is a signature of global warming - and it is there, again contrary to your assertions. Ergo, you should refrain from getting your 'science' from the blogosphere.

"you’re advocating actually physically threatening people with unprovoked aggression"

Hello Peter,
Re the quote above from your last post.
How extraordinary!
At no point have I advocated anything of the kind.
Throughout this discussion, I have been as polite as possible.
I'm at a loss to understand why you would make such an unfounded acccusation.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
At any rate, I do hope that the rest of your assertions throughout are more factually based.
Moreover, the only policy I have advocated is to take action on climate change. To depart from that and to arrive at your suggestion that "my policies" will lead to large numbers of people dying, is... well, frankly, quite difficult to take seriously.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au