I give up, why bother, to the three of you, the on-line world has a word to describe you all, its called being a 'troll'

Enjoy your trolling, or washing machine fixing or whatever bunkum you idiots think qualifies you to write one iota about climate change or AGW as you seem to think it should be called.

Talk about a vacuum, you all fill it well.

At least Cohenite backs up what he states with some references, for the remainder of you: fail.

Geoff your arrogance says it all. A totally closed mind, with just enough doubt creeping in, to be terrified.

Good luck.

Thanks Hasbeen, getting back to the subject at hand:

No doubt here, have you ever read about Occam ’s razor:
To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

Bertrand Russell offers a particular version of Occam's Razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematical proof of a statement akin to Occam's razor, under the assumption the environment follows some unknown but computable distribution of probability.

Similarly have you heard of Liebig's Law which has been extended to biological populations (and is commonly used in ecosystem models). E.g., the growth of an organism such as a plant (in my case seagrass) may be dependent on a number of different factors, such as sunlight or mineral nutrients (e.g. nitrate or phosphate. Chlorophyll a, total suspended solids, phytoplankton biomass).

The availability of these may vary, such that at any given time one is more limiting than the others.

Liebig's Law states that growth only occurs at the rate permitted by the most limiting factor.

Neo-liberal economic theory has sought to refute the issue of resource scarcity by application of the law of substitutability and technological innovation. The substitutability 'law', which has a powerful influence on the discourse of ideas despite the lack of an empirical evidence, states that as one resource is exhausted, the prices rise due to a lack of surplus, new markets based on alternative resources appear at certain prices in order to satisfy demand. Technological innovation implies that humans are able to use technology to fill the gaps where resources are imperfectly substitutable.

The only perfect limiting factor is that which enables life to exist, energy.

No point in articulating this to you all, you have already made up your minds and need to go back to your retirement garages and troll some more.

Me, I will stick with science and see what eventuates.

Dear Geoff of Middle Perth,

Geoff the Hobbit said, “I have been published in a 'real' scientific journal, one that went through rigorous 'peer review’, go figure”.

I’m sure we would all love to “go figure” Geoff. So now that we have dispensed with the deluge of Unicorns you vomited onto your last posts, can we please have the links as requested, to the rigorously peer reviewed scientific papers to which you keep directing our attention?

Just the links and the peer reviewer details would do nicely. No more Hobbit vomit thanks.

Hey, it's reassuring to see that the quality of "debate" on climate-related topics is still as fresh, vibrant and insightful as ever.

Well done, folks.

Geoff,

all I did was ask a very reasonable question.

You answered it with personal insult and unsupportable generalities.

You also used the word gibberish.

now because your deficiencies have been pointed out all you do is hurl abuse as you walk off with your bat and ball.

Yep your's is a lost cause. Have a read of the Australian opinion page today.