csteele
I’m torn between admitting, admitting but saying it doesn’t prove what you’re contending, and denying.

However there’s no need for me to choose because you’ve just lost the argument.

If I admit your four propositions, then at that point you’ve lost the argument because AT BEST you will have ended in a non sequitur, because you still won’t have established any reason for anyone to do anything about global warming.

If I admit your four propositions but say they still don’t establish the warmist argument, the same result follows.

And if I deny them, the same result still follows, only you’d have to prove them first, and at the end of all that, you’d still be stuck with a non sequitur.

Therefore, any way we look at it, you’ve just lost the argument because you’ve ended in a logical fallacy. You cannot plead that the rest of your case would prove you right, because you refuse to say what it is despite my repeated requests, remember?

The only way out, would be for you to state all the propositions that comprise your case, which you have so far studiously avoided doing for obvious reasons: because you know you can’t defend them! Do you think your evasions aren't glaringly obvious?

All
I have just demonstrated again that the warmist argument cannot be defended without evasion and falling back to fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.

QED.

Any other warmists accept my challenge to renounce logical fallacies, state your case, and prove it?

If you do, go ahead.

If you don’t, then the inescapable conclusion is that none of you is able to defend your irrational belief system. As soon as you can be brought, squirming and trying to get out of it, to renounce logical fallacies, it’s ONE STEP to disprove your entire argument, EVEN IF your main factual allegation is already conceded!

Being irrational, your belief system cannot be scientific. It’s just a modern version of the religious doctrine of original sin; and the carbon tax is just a modern version of the selling of indulgences, that’s all.

csteele,

It's all about JKJ "winning", don't you see.

His favourite drum to beat is the one about "logical fallacies" which we all know is the "skeptics" preferred method for countering opposing argument. It's wall-to-wall strawmen sometimes : )

When he used to be Peter Hume, it was common to see him lauding his own prowess, acting triumphal in all his self-congratulatory splendour.

It's been quite entertaining watching him attempt to make the rules, take part in the game - and now claim victory.

(Hoorah!, JKJ....makes me wonder why you bother to ask people to debate. You may as well just cut out the middle-man and declare the victory celebrations)

Poirot

"It's all about JKJ "winning"

Ad hominem: fallacy.

See? That's all the warmists have got. Poirot openly mocks the idea the criterion of rationality.

No, Poirot, it's nothing to do with me personally, and the same issues would still exist no matter my personal circumstances. it's about whether csteele, or you, or anyone can demonstrate that the globe faces anthropogenic detrimental global warming that policy can improve.

Your latest post doesn't prove it, does it? No. csteele's attempt doesn't prove it, does it? No. Nothing that anyone has posted anywhere at any time proves it, does it? No. If it did, you would say what it is.

Dear JKJ,

Wow. I felt we were moving toward addressing the first of your questions; whether there were anthropogenic factors contributing to the sustained global warming. It appears you have decided not to make that journey. You were indeed torn/stuck. Sorry.

However thank you for so aptly demonstrating a further set of logical fallacies.

First;
“Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument”...“The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met” Wikipedia

Second;
“The irrelevant conclusion diverts the attention away from addressing the claim in a dispute instead of analysing its content. This is also called Ignoratio Elenchi or a "red herring".” Wikipedia

Thirdly you wrote;
“Any other warmists accept my challenge to renounce logical fallacies, state your case, and prove it?. If you do, go ahead. If you don’t, then the inescapable conclusion is that none of you is able to defend your irrational belief system.”

There couldn't be a plainer example of "Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.” Wikipedia

You obviously have a deep love for the term fallacy as you have used it or its derivative over 40 times in this thread and even three times in the one sentence. But you should be aware sometimes love is just not enough. You need to take the time to learn its true meaning, its many forms, and recognise them not only when used by others but also when it applies to your own words. May I further advise a more judicious use in the future, at least until you get a better handle on it.

I owe you a debt for reacquainting me with logical fallacies and of course for demonstrating them so robustly. Thank you.

Csteele

I’ve shown that your argument ends in a non sequitur. You haven’t shown how it doesn’t.

That means you’ve lost the entire argument. Nothing you have said changes that.

My alleged fallacies:
1.
“Moving the goalposts”

The goal posts have always been the same: whether you, or anyone, can establish the warmist argument without relying on logical fallacies; NOT the four propositions on which you are stuck in non sequitur.

It's you moving the goalposts.

Fail.

2.
““The irrelevant conclusion diverts the attention away from addressing the claim in a dispute instead of analysing its content.”

My conclusion that you are stuck in a non sequitur is not “irrelevant”. So much for your “sincere hope” that you renounce fallacies!

The “claim in a dispute” is your claim that “As one of your warmists I'm happy to address any question you might have for me”

And my questions are: “what is the warmists' argument in summary? Assuming there is sustained global warming, how do you get from there to a conclusion in favour of policy action?”

So you’ve lost, because you haven’t stated the warmists argument in summary. And you haven’t given any reason why anyone should do anything about it.

Fail.

3.
"…Argument from silence … where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence,”

My conclusion isn’t based on absence of evidence. It’s based on the evidence that, having challenged you to state and prove your argument without reliance on fallacies, you have failed to state it, ending in a logical fallacy.

Fail.

Therefore all your allegations of fallacies on my part, are themselves just more fallacies on yours.

Even if my alleged fallacies were real which they aren’t, you would still have lost the argument because you’ve got the onus of proof, not me, remember?

“You obviously have a deep love for the term fallacy…”
reflecting only your persistence in error.

Ad hominem; mind-reading; irrelevant.

We can only wonder what motivates the warmists to continue snidely arguing for a belief system that they cannot defend, but it’s obvious that they knowingly embrace and push false beliefs.

JKJ,

You are most fulsomely entertaining : )

There you are issuing "fails" and declaring your opponent has lost the argument, banging on interminably about "fallacies" (while setting up your own big fat strawman that "warmists" start out from an "irrational" standpoint.

Let's backtrack a way and see what you wrote:

"Science means what the DATA says not by what the AUTHORITIES say...."

In the next breath he is stating: "And this is quite apart from any question of dodgy assumptions in the science, manipulation, suppression and falsification of data, systemic bias and outright fraud."

csteele, you would have been battling uphill to argue against this pearler of a denier, even if he had stopped moving the cricket pitch all over the ground. If you give him the DATA, then he is likely (as most "skeptics" do) to pull out the "dodgy assumptions, manipulation, suppression, falsification of data, systemic bias and outright fraud - in short "it's a conspiracy"!

JKJ says this: ".....When challenged to actually prove by data, we get links to articles in the mass media that make all the same assumptions as warmists do; and endless chain of the fallacy of equivocation"

Remember Watts yellow line? I link to this http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/ to explain why it was wrong. For that I got a whole lot of cheek from cohenite the lawyer. This happens all the time. I link to a scientific explanation and deniers pull out the conspiracy theories just like you have above. It's their fallback stance.

(csteele - you can add eight more mentions of the word fallacy to your count:)

And JKJ, don't let us interrupt the celebrations. A self-declared "winner" who delights in changing the rules as he goes along is a rare bird - congrats on that!