“give me RATIONAL reasons for believing that you are right and most of the world's best scientists are wrong about a SCIENTIFIC issue.”

Well for starters what you’ve given is an appeal to absent authority, which was known as a fallacy as far back as the ancient Greeks. By itself, it’s not only *not* a scientific argument, it’s not even rational. Please admit that an appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy.

Secondly you haven’t defined the case we are to answer. So there’s an intellectual incoherence, and an assumption of what is in issue, right from the start.

Thirdly the distinction between amateur and professional is not a scientific distinction. Darwin was an amateur. Banks was an amateur. Galileo was an amateur astronomer. As a methodology of knowledge, it is invalid to simply look and see whether the speaker is amateur or professional, without defining it.

Fourthly, to say that some climate scientists have behaved badly is to personalize the issue. The problem, as a matter of *social science* is whether government, in its capacity as the provider of all the billions that fund this inquiry, is affecting the production of knowledge in its own favour. It would be enough to find against the orthodoxy if they had done no more than use the same intellectual methodology as you have used. And guess what? They do. The objection to their scientific method is that they assume what is in issue.

Data do not interpret themselves. That requires theory, and theory requires value judgments. All the positive data in the world would only amount to a massive wodge of temperature measurements. Of themselves, they wouldn’t tell us anything. The problem is that the process of analysis and interpretation is riddled with value judgements at every turn. These are *not* science, and when we examine the publications, case by case, we overwhelmingly find that they are riddled with fallacies such as non sequiturs, assuming what is in issue, and other malfeasance.

However even if we were faced with global warming as significant as defined, there would still be a need to know whether the downsides were greater than the upsides.

This would require knowledge, not just of climate, but of the distribution and abundance of species throughout the whole world now, and in the supposed changed conditions. Please admit that this is the knowledge base assumed by the advocates of policy action on global warming.

It would also require knowledge of the *subjective* value judgments of all people affected, as to the upsides and downsides of the status quo, versus the supposed changed conditions. This knowledge is dispersed among seven billion people. It is universally discounted for futurity.

Please admit that you do not and cannot have this knowledge, and neither can any person or committee whatsoever.

And finally, even if all this were knowable, which it’s not, for any conclusions of climate science to be relevant to public policy, we would need to know that government, by way of policy, can produce an outcome that
a) is ethical in the first place, and
b) would produce results that are better rather than worse.

Again the necessary data set to make that call would be the subjective value judgments of dispersed billions – unknowable – set against another unknowable counterfactual.

Thus there is simply no rational or scientific ground for believing that government is able, by central planning, taxation and bureaucracy, to manipulate the climate so as to produce better than worse outcomes, when all relevant data are taken into account, which in any case, government is incapable of doing.

And thus even if all that climate scientists claim were conceded, which it’s not, you still would be multiple complete refutations away from even beginning to establish a case for policy action based on any alleged climatic problem.

A very erudite challenge to the 'sceptics' indeed, but not much of a challenge to common sense. Your contributor seems to find a trace gas guilty of the most heinous of crimes, that of being a greenhouse gas and that mankind's contribution to this trace gas is capable of influencing climate. Well let's suppose planet Earth is not a greenhouse. Let's suppose it is a big ball of minerals and energy with a hot core overlain with a thin blanket of mixed gases of which the most influential is water vapour with clouds capable of reflection and with all of the energy powerplays involved with latent heat of evaporation and Henry's Law (whoops, what's that? Oh just something to do with temperature and dissolved gases and partial pressures) and thermodynamics and heat transmission. Scientists are not within cooee of even knowing how many sub-sea vents are active due to solar electromagnetic and gravity stresses on the Earth's crust, let alone knowing what ejecta goes into the oceans and the air with every burp. The sooner they stop persecuting life-friendly, trace gas carbon dioxide and pursue real pollution (particulate matter from burning camel dung, plastic bags and heavy metals in the waterways) the sooner we can stop chasing shadows and get on with doing real things to make this a better world.

I'd say that was a fail Mr Hume.

Easily summed up by saying that you are arguing about policy action, where Steven is asking about the scientific issue. BTW Darwin was not an amateur, nor was Banks. In fact, Banks was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. But I guess you are right in that Steven should probably define what he means by 'amateur', as he has used it. It doesn't change his point though.

A couple of other glaring things: you say "Data do not interpret themselves. That requires theory, and theory requires value judgments. All the positive data in the world would only amount to a massive wodge of temperature measurements. Of themselves, they wouldn’t tell us anything. The problem is that the process of analysis and interpretation is riddled with value judgements at every turn. These are *not* science, and when we examine the publications, case by case, we overwhelmingly find that they are riddled with fallacies such as non sequiturs, assuming what is in issue, and other malfeasance."

Well, actually this IS science, because as you say, the data do not interpret themselves. What science does though is test he interpretations after they are made.

As for having to 'know' the value judgements of several billion people, what rot. You have obviously never heard of opinion surveys. You can get a pretty good idea of what the overall picture of the distribution of opinion (i.e. 'value judgements') if your sample size id good enough. There's a whole branch of mathematics they use to estimate these, it's called statistics. You should look it up.

Anyway, one thing you said is true:"Thus there is simply no rational or scientific ground for believing that government is able, by central planning, taxation and bureaucracy, to manipulate the climate so as to produce better than worse outcomes, when all relevant data are taken into account, which in any case, government is incapable of doing. "

But this is not even related to the question. I think it is you who has assumed what is in issue.

climate 'science'is about idiotic as the theory of evolution. It changes every second day with people interpreting data to fit their faith.

Sorry Steven that's a pretty poor effort.

First your appeal to authority, when that authority has proven that it can't lie straight in bed. If authority had any proof of their theory, it would be everywhere, not hidden away inaccessibly in some institutes vault.

There are far too many new red herrings dragged across the media, by these people, only to disappear, once intelligent people shoot them down, for them to have anything worth showing.

When the leading exponents glory in a trick to "hide the decline", the truth is, they have nothing real to support their claims.

Then the trumped up inquiries into climate gate. No authority worth having could have done such a white wash job. They proven themselves liars, with far too much to hide, at every turn.

Then you tell us, nicely, that we are too dumb to understand the physics behind our climate scientists theory. Wrong!. They have shown themselves to be very lacking in the basics they should have to be believable.

Then a little defense of the indefensible, that hockey stick. Mate there is more than enough agricultural [as well as proxy] evidence to prove the medieval warm period existed. Hell, even the early IPCC had it in black & white, until the rest of their case started falling apart, & they needed another red herring. Every twist has only got them more mired in the mess they have created.

Then we have the money. Far too many of our institutions are spendthrifts. They have become totally dependent on government funding of global warming, under what ever name it's masquerading today, to be able to get out.

I no longer believe anything coming out of academia, until I have checked it out thoroughly. As I have only so much time, this means I believe very little. AGW has destroyed their place in society, & they deserve every bit of the flack they are getting.