Poirot
And Clive Hamilton got to the conference by row-boat, I suppose, just as you have stopped using fossil fuels to avoid hypocrisy?

Hamilton has simply done what you and the author have done. He makes no attempt to show that we are faced with catastrophic man-made global warming. He just unquestioningly assumes it on the basis of... what? He doesn't say. He makes no attempt to deal with the issues of climate science, flaccidly pretending they don't exist. Such an approach is mere credulity, not science; and as Hamilton's entire ethical case rests on that fallacy, so his ethics are just as irrational.

It might seem that this is a one-off, but the *entire discourse on global warming* uniformly proceeds in exactly the same way. Everyone who urges it simply refers off to someone else urging it. That's it. No-one actually comes up with the science. The IPCC is not a scientific body, it's a political body. All we get are links to absent authority, and when we follow them up, they involve flagrant illogic and malfeasance: an endless tide, a Hydra of fallacies. Point them out and ten more spring up in their place.

And the latest Climategate emails show
- the World Bank telling the IPCC what to put in its report
- the warmists secretly arguing amongst themselves about the exact same points the skeptics were pointing out, i.e. that the warmists don't have a leg to stand on, while simultaneously telling the skeptics that they were mad, the science is settled, and all the rest of it.

And the mere epigones of people have the gall to talk down to others about disregard for "science"? What a joke.

Of course there is no hope of Poirot ever referring us to the science that supposedly establishes the AGW case. All we will ever get is the same kind of referral off to circular irrational anti-human anti-freedom pro-power, pro-looting articles of faith - and then she has the gall to complain about government-sponsored looting!

Peter Hume,

The science apparently is never settled, although an overwhelming majority of scientists support the proposition of AGW.
That these scientist are now being thoroughly denigrated leads one to conclude it's because their conclusions will interfere with the status quo.

I'm not a scientist and nor are you. And as far as I can see there aren't an abundance of climatologists contributing to OLO (so far I've counted one)...doesn't seem to stop all and sundry spouting their opinion though.

Why shouldn't Clive Hamilton analyse the ethics surrounding climate change denial? After all, we never hear people dissenting when there's a breakthrough in medical science (for example). Most of us contributing know as much about that as we do about climatology....however, we appear to trust the medical scientists to adhere to ethical practice. Could it be that there is currently no organised movement to denigrate them?

To all the global warming deniers. I to am not a Scientist Scientist or a denialist but take organizations like NASA seriously, because their experts can see what is happening on the ground from the Space Station and other satellite data. These people put the man on the moon and I know they have more relevant experience and knowledge in their big toe than the all the denialist on this list have in their brains.

According to NASA Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
http://steveothegreat7.blogspot.com/2011/12/nasa-climate-change-may-bring-big.html
JPL/NASA, 14 December 2011. By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type - such as forest, grassland or tundra - toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study.

Also this denialist babble about the high cost of renewable energy completely ignores the external costs of climate induced ecosystem changes and the fact that expenditure on coping with climate change costsone twentyith less that dodgy fossil lobbyists are already spending

Poirot
"The science apparently is never settled, although an overwhelming majority of scientists support the proposition of AGW."

Science proceeds by reason and evidence, not headcounts and groupthink: Fallacy 1.

Anyway, take away from that "overwhelming majority" those with a vested interest and see it disappear.

"That these scientist are now being thoroughly denigrated leads one to conclude it's because their conclusions will interfere with the status quo."

You haven't eliminated the possibility that it's because they cannot rationally defend their claims, and neither can you, which is what's in issue.

Fallacy 2: circularity.

"I'm not a scientist and nor are you. And as far as I can see there aren't an abundance of climatologists contributing to OLO (so far I've counted one)...doesn't seem to stop all and sundry spouting their opinion though."

Personal argument; irrelevance: Fallacy 3.

What you need to do is provide *evidence* and *reason*, that we are faced with catastrophic man-made global warming which policy can necessarily improve after taking account of all the downsides.

You haven't done so because you cannot do so, therefore you have lost the argument.

"Why shouldn't Clive Hamilton analyse the ethics surrounding climate change denial?"

Because he hasn't established, and cannot establish, the proposition that is being denied, thus assuming what is in issue.

Fallacy 4: more circularity.

"After all, we never hear people dissenting when there's a breakthrough in medical science (for example). Most of us contributing know as much about that as we do about climatology....however, we appear to trust the medical scientists to adhere to ethical practice."

Speak for yourself. Medicine is often the subject of pseudo-science by vested interests, for example drug companies - exactly paralleling the situation with climate science.

Appeal to absent authority; circularity; invincible credulity: Fallacy 5.

"Could it be that there is currently no organised movement to denigrate them?"

Assumes what's in issue: Fallacy 6
Ad hominem: Fallacy 7.

That's it folks. You're looking at all the AGW camp has to offer.

PEST
The problem is not with what the scientific bodies are saying. You, Poirot, Clive Hamilton, and Ethan are all quite right in saying that these bodies are saying that we face CAGW.

The problem is in the science itself. It does not support what the scientific bodies are saying. That's why, when I ask you to supply the actual *science* - not press releases of government-funded bodies - you can't do it.

The reason you can't do it, is because it doesn't exist.

The *method* you are using - just blindly accepting what someone else says, is not science.

Okay? Got that? There is no scientific basis for what you're saying. You are taking it on blind faith, and when anyone asks you, or anyone else, to actually stump up the science that supposedly supports the proposition, all we get - in any forum - is just more of what Hamilton and Poirot have just done:
"It is because it is."
"It must be so because it must be so."
"It is because someone told me."
"It is because the government said so."

So please either admit that you have no rational basis for your argument or:
1. prove that we face catastrophic global warming - NOT BY MERE FLACCID APPEAL TO ABSENT AUTHORITY, SHOWS US THE ACTUAL SCIENCE
2. show what account you have taken of the upsides of AGW, and how you know that the downsides would be greater. Prove it.
3. show what account you have taken of the downsides of policy action and how you know that the upsides would be greater. Prove it.

Honestly, this is like talking to dark ages peasants with an invincible circular faith in religion. The only difference is that you have replaced the church with the state.

Peter Hume,

You're being a tad hypocritical... almost everything you stated in your last post applies to the denialist camp also.

I didn't notice you "supplying the actual science" denying the AGW proposition in your recent posts

I don't plan to continue arguing the point in this instance. Suffice to say that I prefer to go with the evidence presented by respected scientific institutions, while you take your cue from scientists connected with think tanks that are funded largely by big oil and other corporate interests