Poirot I addressed your Arctic 'evidence' on another post where you raised Tamino's analysis of Arctic ice levels.

You have a closed mind and a mental blindspot on this issue.

One of your links purports to deal with the migration north of plants under the yoke of AGW. Actually the expansion of the Tropical Belt towards the poles happened in the Holocene [you can google papers on this] and the most recent expansion happened well before AGW, at least in Australia:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.1996.tb00035.x/abstract

This expansion, which is cyclical and independent of AGW is a good thing in terms of food production:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/a-bridge-in-the-climate-debate-how-to-green-the-worlds-deserts-and-reverse-climate-change/

But food production and raising standards of living for more people is not a priority with the scare mongers of AGW.

Poirot
You have already conceded defeat on this entire topic, remember?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14688&page=0

It was specifically over your tactic of posting links as if these prove your point when they only prove your appeal to absent authority.

Since appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, that means your method is not rational and therefore is scientific.

Yet we NEVER see anything but the following tactics from all you who claim we face a significant problem of global warming which policy can improve,
- assuming it from the outset
- appeal to absent authority
- misrepresentation
- personal argument.

But there is no requirement for us to accept your belief in authorities. You need to be able prove your argument yourself.

So let's settle this once and for all. Post your proof, without anything other than your proof, and to avoid evasion on your part, let's agree that any reply that relies on an appeal to absent authority, or assuming what's in issue, or any of the fallacies named above, means you concede the general issue finally and forever, okay?

If you protest that can't do it in this confined space, then shut up.

You have nothing but the repetition of fallacies and insistence on credulity.

Perhaps all you skeptics could read this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

It might actually open some of your eyes, but then again, you will have your own preconceived mantra response that you assume will debunk these findings, of course...

Jardine K. Jardine, (who sounds incredibly like Peter Hume:)

Telling people to "shut up" isn't cogent argument.

Pretty lame in fact.

: )

It seems the Flat-Earthers are out in force again.

I'll guarantee that, to a man and woman, they all have shares in armament manufacturers, oil and car companies, miners, etc, and operate trusts which avoid tax.

They don't want climate change to be true so they pretend it doesn't exist. Even when nightly, on our televisions, we see calamitous weather events across the world, they tell themselves, "It's not happening. It's a ruse by those climate change people trying to spoil our financial bonanza from fossil fuels!"

Climate-change deniers are like religious fanatics: their brains (such as they are) are in neutral and their eyes are closed. Of course the world is flat, they opine. Their ignorance is infinite!

They should be ignored. Arguing with fanatics is always a waste of time!

Poirot,

The main reason that people want the carbon tax removed is not because they don't believe in the link between GHG emissions and global warming, rather that there is an understanding that Australia going it alone without more than the token effort by the major polluters, Australia is damaging its economy with no measureable gain.