Dear JKJ

Surely you do not seriously think that winning the "battle" against those you call the warmists and denialists on this site will in any way save the world?

The demand from some that they are owed an explanation, on their own terms, using their cherry-picked data is tedious, wrongheaded and just plain silly.

The place to discuss science is with experts, not fellow bar-flies.

This is not the first time that this little rag of a site has followed this path and I expect that it will not be the last.

I recommend that those who seek to understand the tactics used to support a priori bias often coming from the opposite side of this discussion should read the small article at the following linked address. It illustrates similar logical flaws in the argument for solar and PV, regardless of low-carbon and no-carbon alternatives which may well be able to be constructed faster, more reliably and safer.

The important thing to to listen to expertise and to discount non-expert opinion.

Untrained zealots and Anthony, take note.

http://decarbonisesa.com/2013/04/22/gilding-a-weak-argument-against-nuclear/#more-1815

JKJ states: "Geoff of Perth
We have already established twice in two months that you are completely unable to defend the warmist argument many times over, so stop popping up and re-running the same cult fallacies."

Interesting considering the link I posted and the evidence provided in the paper is hot off the press.

Perhaps you should go back to school and learn some basic chemistry and physics.

Then again, your mind is already made up, isn't it?

Me, well I will stick to the science and see where it leads, and yes I am more than open to changes and peer review that disputes earlier facts and assumptions in the 'science', you obviously just like to post and post and post, without any reference to demonstrated facts that completely counter any argument you purport to put forward.

Shallow as usual.

I just wish people would stop waffling on about this unless they can prove they can do something about it other than just play with themselves.

Geoff
Since you have failed repeatedly to show how your beliefs have any rational connection to policy because of your inability to deal with the factor of human evaluations, and when I have challenged you to prove what you're arguing you go quiet and slink off only to re-appear re-running the same belief system in a different thread, referring to more links that are "hot off the press" doesn't save your confused beliefs from being irrational.

The problem you're facing is not an inability to cite links hot off the press. Well know warmists can do that! The problem is that it doesn't prove what you're arguing! Your belief that it does only proves that your confused, or disingenuous. The problem is that your belief system doesn't make logical sense even in your own terms which is why you can't defend it. Like all warmists everywhere, you are unable to show whether the world faces detrimental anthropogenic global warming which policy can improve.

Admit it, or prove what you're arguing. Merely personalising the argument to me, as all the warmist responses have done, only proves your cult methodology.

Quite apart from the fact that the "science" you guys are uncritically relying on is riddled with blatant fraud and every kind of dodgy practice, even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't be capable of concluding the normative or political issues you are contending for.

Dear JKJ,

Oh goody. Looks like we can continue our excellent discussion of logical fallacies. We can both illustrate our enhanced grasp on them as I feel we both learnt a lot from our last session. What was going to be just another one of Anthony's boring and inane merry-go-rounds has just become fun.

Play on good sir!