9. “It is not okay to treat the role of government as irrelevant to the production of knowledge in what is a trillion-dollar governmental concern and industry. It is not okay to simply assume that government’s blatant and open bias in favour of CAGW is beneath notice, or has not affected the outcome.”
10. “Science does not supply value judgments. The claims of climate scientists to know what temperature the planet should be are false.”
11. “Even if the warmists’ climatological claims were true, that of itself would only show a tendency to a rise in temperatures. It does not self-evidently prove that the real consequences are necessarily detrimental rather than beneficial.”
12. “The methodology for concluding that CAGW is detrimental is flawed because it assumes any change is automatically detrimental, assumes any anthropogenic effect is automatically detrimental, fails to consider possible benefits, lacks any means of taking into account the necessary human valuations in the alternatives, and lacks a lowest common denominator in which to compare them.”
13. “Even if the results were necessarily detrimental, the methodology for concluding that policy is justified is flawed because it assumes policy would be beneficial without taking account of the downsides in terms of human deprivation or suffering or death caused by policy; and because it lacks any means of taking into account the necessary human valuations in the alternatives, and lacks a lowest common denominator in which to compare them.”
14. “the vested interests behind the whole alarm have been corrupted by the billions of dollars that depend on government servants favouring the line indicated by their political masters.”

Now which theory has more explaining power?

With REAL science ONE disproof is enough to dispose of the matter. The very fact that the warmists persist in dealing with questions that prove them wrong by refusing to answer them means they have completely and totally lost the argument.

But perhaps if the warmists repeat their evasions and fallacies a few more times, cite the IPCC a bit more, or post another link to the SMH that will satisfy their intellectual standards?

Jardine K. Jardine

Please don't let any in facts get in the way of anything you wish to believe.
Don't let those those pesky scientists get under your skin, just because they are pointing out the flaming obvious, like the Arctic melting, glaciers melting, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, various continents breaking all time heat records, flash floods, or insurance claims for weather related events sky-rocketing.
All this is happening at a time when it would be reasonable to expect temperatures to be falling due to reduced sunspot activity and several recent La Nina events.

Meanwhile lets throw another couple of 100 millions tons of coal, a few billion barrels of oil, and 3 or 4 cubic kilometres of natural gas on the BBQie.

Oh warmair - you are such a laugh!
everything you just said is just wrong.

wake up mate!

warmair
Please acknowledge that you understand that appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, and that a scientific conclusion cannot rely on a logical fallacy.

Jardine K. Jardine

I recommend you come out of hibernation before it is too late.

The only authority I am interested in, are the facts which clearly show that the globe is warming.

It is a simple fact that for the global ice sheets to be steadily melting means that more heat is coming in than is escaping.

The evidence is clear from the satellites that Arctic ice is reducing steadily both in area and volume.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Minimum_Comparison.png/220px-Arctic_Sea_Ice_Minimum_Comparison.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Oldest_Arctic_Sea_Ice_is_Disappearing.png/220px-Oldest_Arctic_Sea_Ice_is_Disappearing.png

None of which is surprising considering that how quickly the Arctic is warming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/ArcticYearlongTempAnom_HR.jpg/220px-ArcticYearlongTempAnom_HR.jpg


Antarctic ice is also reducing in volume based on at least three streams of data.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2006-028

Glaciers are in steady decline in the majority of places. Just in case you think the information given in the links below is not borne out by fact I have visited a few of the glaciers in question and can confirm that the information given in the link was accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/gallery/retreating.html

None of the above is based on the views of any particular person or authority it is based on the data.
Global warming is beyond any reasonable doubt, the cause and man's contribution are issues which are open to some rational debate but to deny the data is not

warmair, you are tedious. I took the trouble to go through your links; they are rubbish, in particular your link to a 2006 NASA GRACE conclusion that the ice sheet has been declining.

GRACE initially had trouble with Glacial Isostatic adjustment [GIA] which is a false reduction of the ice sheet caused by compression of the ice due to weight which confounds the GRACE satellite measuring signal; 2 new studies have shown the initial conclusion of less ice was wrong:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/which-sea-level-measurement-does-the-lack-of-ice-melt-agree-with/

Please note the 2nd paper which is discussed at the linked site in the context of how a growing Antarctic will reduce sea level rise is no longer avaialable at the NASA site. Conspiracy!