Thus the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the warmists is demonstrated.

Their technique, AT ITS BEST, consists of selectively identifying evidence of warming, pre-supposing that the only possible explanation is it must be caused by man's sin and the demon carbon dioxide, and badly extrapolating from there that we're all going to die from making life on earth unsustainable unless government has the power to regulate every aspect of human existence.

Note also their unvarying technique. They present full of bluster and conceited insults about how anyone who disagrees with them doesn't understand "science", assume what is in issue and appeal to authority over and over and over again. Then when it becomes clear that they can't divert the debate away from their actual methodology, one by one they silently slink away.

They do not have the intellectual decency to concede what they cannot defend: and they just pop up again elsewhere re-running the same refuted fallacies.

When the skeptics accuse the warmists of ad hom, non sequitur, begging the question and appeal to absent authority, as we have just seen, it's demonstrably true because THAT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT AND ALL THEY'VE EVER HAD - that and billions of dollars of worth of an international empire of government funding. And they have the gall to accuse the skeptics of being in the pay of big vested interests!

But, as the warmists have the onus of proof and have not yet discharged it (because they can't), when they accuse the skeptics of fallacies it is just more irrelevance. The fallacies of the skeptics AT THEIR WORST still do not detract from what we have just seen, that the warmists have no argument but popular delusion and the madness of crowds.

JKJ,

On the contrary....

I'm not intending to frequent this forum very often in the future. It's ostensibly become just another denialist site, pretty well full to the brim of the type of usual suspects who inhabit other sites like it.

Presided over by "scientist-in-chief", cohenite the lawyer and his merry band of hecklers.

Take your own contributions, for instance. You appear to possess one generic argument for all your debates. No matter what the subject or your present incarnation, out you whip your trusty template, which is ....boring.....

It is fascinating, however, watching you guys trawl around for someone to argue with...."slinking off"...nah, just thought we'd leave it to you to reinforce each others denial. But it's a bit difficult to achieve when there's no-one left on the other side for you and the others' to hurl invective at.

Oh well.....

Poirot
Do you think your evasions are not obvious to the most casual observer?

I'm a "denialist". And what scientific proposition is it that you allege I'm denying?

Now come on. Just show your data and workings for how you figured out the alleged anthropogenic global warming is detrimental will you, and the downsides of policy, for both scenarios, in units of a lowest common denominator, then and you can stop your bickering.

And *I'm* the denialist? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Gawd, Peter Hume, you're so transparent.

Do you really think I'm going to waste my time re-introducing argument that has been presented on this forum (and rejected by "black-is-white" denialists) a hundred times before?

Bugsy pointed out that this never was a site for serious climate debate. I have to agree. It's a site for popular opinion on a subject that few have expertise in. You guys even reject argument from scientists when it's simplified and laid out carefully in front of you.

No matter how many times denialist banter is blown out of the water, it makes no difference to your outlook.

Which is why it's called "denial" and not "skepticism".

Anyway, I'm off to do something a little more meaningful...have a nice day.

"Anyway, I'm off to do something a little more meaningful"

Say hi to the other pixies down at the collective; you're going to be so bored when the lie of AGW bites the dust; you'll have to invent another great cause; I reckon Alien abduction would suit you; swished away by great hulking space-critters in white rockets; I could see a book series.

Anyway, after the lunatics currently 'governing' us are put back in their cages I'm going to do my best to get a new law in place which mandates that 'green' voting electorates must source their electricity from green energy.

Stock up on candles.

Poirot, whatever you do, don't read the major German, yes German newspapers. It would really spoil your day.

They are now publishing the evidence of the fraud.

Despite the fact that most of the northern hemisphere is still digging itself out of the snow of the 5Th severe winter in a row, they are not cherry picking, like our immoral lot.

No they are quoting the science that warmists have been trying to hide for years, & the new stuff built on that.

When all the physics is in, it suggests increase CO2 will result in a very minor cooling, & definitely no heating, of the greenhouse kind or not.