No, Hume.

It was an example that you said happens all the time. In fact it seems as if a lot of what you reckon is going on depends on it. You said you have seen it time after time, so it shouldn't be difficult to remember at least one of them, I didn't think you had to go to a lot of trouble to find one.

You want me to admit that I'm irrational because you like to argue per fallaciam? It ain't gonna happen.

Cough up the links or admit you don't have any.

Err... Steven. I have the impression that this exercise isn't quite working out as you expected. No? It couldn't be the case that us sceptics have raised questions that your buddies can't really answer?

“You want me to admit that I'm irrational because you like to argue per fallaciam?”

Misrepresentation; non sequitur.

I want you to admit that you’re irrational for the numerous reasons I have given which disprove your entire argument and which you have not answered; not because I can’t be bothered chasing down a subsidiary reference which can neither prove your case nor disprove mine.

“In fact it seems as if a lot of what you reckon is going on depends on it.”

On the contrary, I have shown why the climate science of itself is necessary but not sufficient to any question of human values and public policy. Therefore my argument doesn’t depend on it because even without such a link, you can’t establish the relevance of global warming to anything and remain mired in logical fallacies that you can’t defend and won’t admit.

I’ll admit I can’t be bothered looking up the link. That still doesn't save you or Steven or AGW from my unanswered, and unanswerable critique of your irrational belief system.

Same crap, different day.

You're making up stories again. Stick to the politics Hume, leave the science alone. They like your kind in politics.

Atman,

Sorry but the assertion that volcanoes contribute more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels is patently wrong.

Vocanoes primarily emit dust and up to around 320 million tonnes of greenhouses gasses per year. Human activity contributes around 30 billion tonnes per year - about 100 times as much.

Where volcanoes influence the global climate over time periods (of a few years) is due to the injection of sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere.

This happens during those very large volcanic eruptions that occur sporadically each century.

More than "a few" of Plimer's assertions have been proven to be false and I think if you want to nominate an anti-AGW champion, it should not be one who is actually being funded by one of the industries with a vested interest in the outcome of any debate.

A really good article Steven, very well thought out and presented, and I think you have the sceptics scratching around for any poxy piece of flotsam they can find in an ultimately vain attempt to counter your logic and clarity. Your challenge of course, for someone to come up with some actual credible science capable of poking a hole in the fundamental AGW proposition, was never going to produce the goods, for, as you have so clearly pointed out, the science is far too complex for any but the dedicated professional to come to grips with in anything but the broadest terms. (Irrespective of the protestations to the contrary by some.)

It is of course unfortunate that some credible scientists have gone a step too far and fudged the books here and there, albeit their intentions may have been honourable and in the global interest. Such transgressions have both muddied the waters and unwittingly given ammunition to the perennial conspiracy peddlers and those who may always be counted upon to swim against the tide - whether counterintuitive, headline seekers, or just plain stirrers, I cannot fathom; though some are probably genuinely acting as devil's advocate in what they perceive to be to test the rigour of the hypothesis.

When first evaluating the AGW possibility some 20 years ago, based on the greenhouse phenomenon and the noted consequences of damage to the ozone layer from cfc's, I made no attempt to unravel the science, but took a broad view that the massive consumption of fossil fuels from the beginning of the industrial age could not avoid consequences for the global environment. I have spent no dollars in my quest for understanding, and have only had confirmation since of my conclusion back then that there necessarily had to be a shift in the natural balance, and that this would ultimately produce global warming. I have no way of confirming the projections of a possible freeze, but also have no reason to reject it as a consequential possibility. Why some or many are still sceptical is the real imponderable.