Cont..

So where does that leave us? I think the only way forward is to continue building until we find our real point of contention. Therefore I will state what I see as preliminary givens. If you want to challenge any of them I will then undertake to furnish evidence to support them.

1. CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas.
2. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect on this planet.
3. CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.
4. Human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Of course I am not expecting any conclusions or 'joinings' to be drawn at this point, just that we continue building on some solid foundations.

I had the impression from your earlier posts on this thread that this was what you valued. If you would rather 'rip and tear' let me know.

Finally you put;

“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.” Fine, but if this heads where I think it might you also need to be prepared to state the denialist case, because I also can’t propose in the negative, nor can I state your case for you.

I am enjoying your informative explanations at the end of you posts so thank you.

Messrs Jardine & Steele,

Thank you for a most enlightening teasing-out of the preliminary settings for AGW issues.

Hopefully, we might move on now to the actual issues :)

Joe

"1. CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas.
2. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect on this planet.
3. CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.
4. Human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Seems a reasonable set of parameters; "sustained rate" needs defining; some sources say CO2 increase is linear, others exponential.

Loudmouth
I hope so too as I have never seen a warmist argument that, when challenged, does not fall back to logical fallacies especially appeal to absent authority and begging the question. So without trying to eliminate that possibility, there’s no point discussing the issues, or we’ll just be back to the usual loop.

csteele
Do you explicitly renounce recourse to logical fallacies or not?

Dear JKJ,

I sincerely hope we are explicitly renouncing them together.

I feel I have demonstrated that I have taken my side of this shared responsibility to heart, studying up what constitutes logical fallacies, identifying them when they have been utilised by your good self in recent posts, and taking on board your analysis when you have given it.

May they slip into my replies unintended on the odd occasion? Probably, as I think they may yours, but I would of course have the good manners to allow you the opportunity to correct your offerings to conform with our agreed rules.

If you, for whatever reason, deem this inadequate we can apply a three strike or even a single strike and you are out rule. However I think 'correction' might serve us better, not only for the sake of the discussion but also for our small but distinguished, though possibly slightly impatient, audience.

May I take this opportunity to note that to be precise my points 2 and 3 should read 'Atmospheric CO2'.

If this all finds favour in your eyes then let the building continue! Well at least within the constraints of a four post limit.

Csteele

1. Renouncing fallacies
“I sincerely hope we are explicitly renouncing them together.”

I’ll take that as a yes you renounce them; correct me if I’m wrong.

“However I think 'correction' might serve us better…”

I agree. Best way is, if one thinks the other’s argument fallacious, to point it out and give reasons. For my part I renounce recourse to fallacies; and correct me if you notice one that I don’t.

2. Joining issue
I will be putting you to proof of your last four propositions and from here on.

As you are now entered on propositions which go to the question whether the sustained global warming that is common ground, is anthropogenic, I don’t know why you took exception to me saying that the issues include whether its anthropogenic.

So I wish you would cut to the chase and let us know if you intend to contend whether the sustained global warming is
1. anthropogenic
2. detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial; and if so, significant enough to warrant political action
3. amenable to improvement by policy.

If you don’t intend to affirm these or similar propositions, especially 2. and 3., there’s nothing to argue about.

And if you do, I think the warmists’ case gets progressively much harder for them to prove in that order.

So if you do intend to argue points 1 to 3 above, and had intended to proceed by establishing common ground, proposition by proposition, from 1 to 3, then I would like to advise against that, for two reasons.