JKJ,

"Notice how he doesn't admit he can't answer them?"

(I'm surmising that he's the only contributor to this thread who can answer them.....but why would he bother?)

ozdoc
Wow. More ad hom and equivocation. How very persuasive.

So now "the planet" and "our grandchildren" aren't at risk after all? Looks like there's no need for government to try to control all the oxidation and reduction reactions in the world after all?

Poirot
Why would he bother when warmists don't bother with evidence? Mere sycophancy towards the powerful satisfies your standard of proof.

What a pathetic snivelling lying corrupt doomsday cult you people belong to.

jkj, calling you shrill is not adhom. An example of adhom is;

"What a pathetic snivelling lying corrupt doomsday cult you people belong to."

Jardine K. Jardine, you can rant and rave all you like but at the end of the day, no one really cares.
Not least those with real names with real credentials who contribute in real ways in real forums.

Bed-time advice jkj: don't distort what other people say.

JKJ,

"Wow. More ad hom and equivocation. How very persuasive."

You're rather a rabid hypocrite, aren't you.

I don't as a rule read your posts these days as they all resemble each other ad nauseam - no matter what the subject at hand.

But let's take alook at the inimitable style of "Mr Let's Complain About Ad Hom".

"What a pathetic snivelling lying corrupt doomsday cult you people belong to."...(thanks ozdoc)

"Come on guys. Got that evidence there yet? No, not dishonest links to irrelevance and fallacy...."

"It's really pathetic and you can only wonder what motivates them. It's obviously not truth or science otherwise they wouldn't keep answering in nothing but fallacies and evasions."

"Well just because you don't care about honesty and truth, doesn't mean everyone is the same - especially not the large numbers of people who would be killed by the warmists' infantile deluded faith in total government control of everything"

"Then when finally unable to defend their mendacity, Poirot has the gall to claim it's all a matter of opinion."

"That's it. That's the entire discourse in a nutshell. Further requests for evidence or reason just meet with the same nutty response, at all levels from the seriously snout-in-the-trough high priests who privately admit the failure of their theory is "a travesty", down to the useful idiots who uncritically support this corrupt and anti-human junketing."

"Therefore that is not "science", and you are deliberately lying, and the reason we know you are lying...."

Great stuff, JKJ, almost solid ad hom and sundry blather....next to no science.

Hi Jardine K. Jardine,

Apologies. Poirot is only new at this, she still thinks whoever makes the most noise wins the debate. She hasn't gotten to chapter yet which explains that what you say has to make sense.

Ditto Ozdoc

Cheers

Poirot, ozdoc

Ad hominem means personal insult *in substitution of* rational argument, not *in addition to* it.

Your argument is ad hominem because you haven't provided any rational basis for your belief that there's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. All you've ever done in answer to anyone's request for you to prove it, is abuse them for not believing what you believe and refer off to other people who share the same belief as you.

My *argument* is not ad hominem because it doesn't *rely* on the personal insults. It stands independently on the merits of the fact that the IPCC admits that the globe hasn't warmed for 15 years while emissions rose at unprecedented levels, and therefore all its theories and all its models are wrong. Unlike your insults, mine are *in addition to*, not *instead of* rational argument.

This means that your entire argument is only this: "there is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming because Jardine K. Jardine is a bad person".

That's the level of snivelling half-witted credulity that underlies the ENTIRE global warming argument, because if this were not so, its proponents would answer the criticism of their case, by actually joining issue on the defects in the data and their theory, not by merely squarking "Someone somewhere else said it's true and you're bad for not believing it!" which is all you've got and all you've had.