“Normally I wouldn't let someone get away with a “for the sake of the argument” fallacy.”

Why is it a fallacy to concede something for the sake of argument? That’s not a fallacy, or if it is, what is the fallacy?

“introduces a weak foundation stone which that party can pull at will to collapse the whole effort”

No it doesn’t, because if I tried to raise it as an objection later, I would be contradicting my own undertaking not to do so, and thus must lose that point for that reason.

Yes it needs to be broken down. A good and venerable method of doing so is that of pleadings at common law, which were specifically designed for this purpose. They basically apply Aristotelian logic impartially to disputed propositions, enabling them to be indefinitely broken down into their component sub-issues. Pleadings were used to identify the issues before a hearing, thus eliminating matters that were either agreed or irrelevant. Once defined, the parties would then proceed to show evidence or reason for their case, with the party asserting going first.

An issue is a proposition capable of being answered yes or no, starting with ‘whether’ or ‘that’, which one party affirms and the other denies.
The party asserting a proposition must state it.
It must be stated in the positive, not the negative (“that X is not true”).
The other side can then either admit each proposition, deny it, or admit it but say it doesn’t have the effect the other side is contending for, in which case it then becomes a sub-issue which the responder must state.
The general issue is the proposition which, answered one way or the other, concludes the whole argument in favour of one party or the other. Every other proposition is a sub-issue.
The party asserting has the onus of proof.

“For instance does a 'warmist' need to have concluded all three of your propositions?”

Depends how we define the issues. I think you need first to state the warmist case, because I can’t propose in the negative, and I can’t state your case for you.

I said the ‘anthropogenic, detrimental, improvable by policy’ bit in an attempt to compendiously define the issues. However I don’t see how a warmist can avoid asserting the three elements that I proposed because
a) the anthropogenic part is the warmists’, not mine
b) so is the detrimental bit; if it’s not detrimental I don’t care, so there’s no issue, and
c) if you’re not proposing a policy response, then again I don’t care, so there’s no issue.

“so in the spirit of magnanimity I will let it stand just as I am prepared to let you avoid producing a data set but I think it only fair I get to play that card once too.”

For the two reasons I have given, I don’t need to produce a data set, because
a) it’s not a fallacy to concede something from the outset, because it’s merely filtering out what is not in issue; and
b) an issue must be stated in the positive (the globe is warming), not in the negative (the globe is not warming), and the onus of proof is on the party asserting.

I have conceded the issue about whether there’s sustained warming because I am confident that the warmists cannot establish their justification of policy even in their own terms. But if I had not conceded it, I still wouldn’t have had to produce a data set because the onus of proof starts out on you to prove your case, not on me to disprove it.

Let us proceed? Will you accept my challenge and state your case?

Dear JKJ,

The agreed parameters at the very start of our exchange was that our questions would go 'one for one'. You agreed saying “Thanks for your challenge which I gladly accept.”

I took the time to formulate a question that was pared down, free from supposition, and one I would have thought provided a perfect building block.

You then chuck the whole kiln at me. Has 'one to one' now become 'one to many'? If so then lets agree to change the rules.

Look at what you put to me.

“As that point is no longer in issue, pray tell us how you get from there to your conclusion that the sustained global warming, which we are indubitably experiencing, is anthropogenic, detrimental, and amenable to improvement by policy?”

Let us list the assumptions.

Firstly you assumed the 'point' was not longer an issue. Surely this is something I need to agree to. Having thought about it I assessed the risk of you 'pulling the foundation stone' as sufficiently low that I acquiesed, nevertheless I feel the protocols under which I thought we were operating would dictate that you were at the very least being presumptive.

Next your question assumes I have concluded that all the sustained global warming is due to anthropogenic factors. You have not ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine so why state it as a given? Also doesn't this raise the Fallacy of the single cause where 'it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes?'

Cont..

Here's an excellent article in The Economist.

In summary - no one bloody knows!

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Csteele
Can I just say, while you are paused…

“I took the time to formulate a question that was pared down, free from supposition, and one I would have thought provided a perfect building block.”

Well as I’ve agreed to it, it does make a perfect building block.

“Firstly you assumed the 'point' [whether the world is experiencing sustained global warming] was no longer an issue. Surely this is something I need to agree to.”

You already agree that the world is experiencing sustained global warming. You’re the one asserting it, aren’t you?

Therefore since I’ve conceded that proposition, we’re both saying ‘yes’ to the same proposition, which means it’s not an issue. So it’s not being presumptuous of me to treat is as a non-issue. The only way it could be an issue now is if you’re denying that the world is experiencing sustained global warming.

“Next your question assumes I have concluded that all the sustained global warming is due to anthropogenic factors.”

It’s not me arguing the warmist case, it’s you. I’m asking you to tell me what it is. I thought I was making a fair representation of it because, as I understand the warmists’ argument, it’s that we face extra-ordinary warming that risks being extra-ordinarily detrimental, enough to warrant international governmental action to control carbon usage.

“You have not ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine so why state it as a given?”

I state it as a given because surely it's common ground to all parties to the debate that the issue is whether the alleged global warming is anthropogenic? Why should I have to ask you whether you agree it's anthropogenic?

But if it’s not, then by all means forget my attempt to represent the issues, and do you please go right ahead.

“Also doesn't this raise the Fallacy of the single
cause…?”

You tell me. What is the warmist case you want me to answer?

What do you want me to do?

Note: Sorry JKJ, hit hard up against the posting limit. Please forgive me but I will post the rest of what I had prepared as I am now very short of time. The only thing I will say about your above post is that when I wrote that “Next your question assumes I have concluded that all the sustained global warming is due to anthropogenic factors.” the operative word is 'all'. I feel I'm holding you to the standard you would have me display. Now to the rest of my reply, hopefully it lets me deliver the third one.

Cont..

You have also assumed I have concluded the substantial warming we are experiencing is going to be either entirely, or on balance detrimental. Once again you have not taken the opportunity to ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine.

Finally you have assumed I have concluded the sustained global warming 'amenable to improvement by policy'. Of course there is the initial charge that once again you have not taken the opportunity to ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine but look at the basic logic of your words. If we take them at their face value then 'improvement' would surely mean a 'greater amount of'.

To the issue of you providing a data set. You claim “it’s not a fallacy to concede something from the outset, because it’s merely filtering out what is not in issue”. What could be more germane to the climate change argument than acknowledging the Earth is experiencing a sustained period of warming? Conceding for the sake of argument or because “I am confident that the warmists cannot establish their justification of policy even in their own terms” is vastly different to accepting the premise. As stated I am happy to move on but felt the point needed to be made.

Cont..