Poirot, it isn't wrong at all.
We can all pick and choose which scientists, if any, that we like to demonstrate what we think about the causes and effects of climate change or global warming.

At the end of the day, it is all still theories as far as I am concerned .
We may never work out all the answers to climate change.

I am still not totally convinced that humans can actually affect the world's climate, and even the scientists are still only 95% sure, at this stage.

The fact remains though, that the climate is always going to change, and that any pollution caused by humans, or their animals, does not help us.

I, for one, would prefer to err on the side of caution and go with the scientists, rather than those who believe in invisible beings in the sky!

I have written a short essay on my website about what I mean by referring to myself as an
'agnostic', and some of that is relevant to the discussion here.

Tombee asks what the take-home message was intended to be. My view is that the overwhelming message we get from government, the NGOs and organised 'climate science' is that we are doomed (etc). I am not a climate scientist at all, but it has been a serious study of mine for six years now, and I have a read a great deal. You don't have to be a laboratory scientist to read in this field. It is based on temperature and other weather data, and the data are publicly accessible. You and anyone else can play with the data and see what you think. A great deal is known about the data, as well.

I thought I could provide a useful counter to all the pressure coming the other way by summarising what three most eminent scientists have said that is different. You don't have to agree with them. I just think that it is hard ever to see the counter-orthodoxy stuff in our media.

And, for Poirot, I wrote a long and well-researched paper about global warming several years ago, which he can find on my website under Writings. Nothing in that paper has been disproved by what has happened since it was written.

Poirot

It's okay for you to do the same if you're talking to someone who accepts your appeal to absent authority as a method of knowing what is in issue.

It's not okay if they call you on it, ask you to show reason and evidence for your view, and all you do is
a) assume that there is a problem of catastrophic global warming that policy can improve,
b) purport to prove it by appeal to absent authority, and
c) personally vilify anyone for questioning it.

But that's the whole issue, isn't it? And you've never made any contribution but endlessly repeating those logical fallacies, have you?

We know that the IPCC has "confidence". What they don't have is DATA to justify it.
Emissions have continued and have risen, but temperatures haven't. All the warmists' models are WRONG.

Notice how, at no stage, do any of the warmists offer any actual reason or evidence for their view? All they ever do is what Poirot has done.

All we need to know to understand the entire belief system, is to understand that all the "scientists" she's referring off to, are using the same methodology of knowledge that she is!

The dialogue looks like this:
Warmist: "We need to save the planet from impending catastrophe caused by man-made global warming that policy can improve."
Skeptic: "Where's your evidence?"
Warmist: "Denialist! Paedophile! Child-killer! You belong in prison!"
Skeptic: "What's your reason?"
Warmist: "Denialist! Child-molester! You dare to question authority?!"
Skeptic: "Prove policy benefits outweigh the costs?"
Warmist: "Denialist!"

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.

Thanks Don,

My wish here was not to impugn you.

You're entitled to your opinion as much as the next man.

As I pointed out to spindoc, it's difficult to argue against skeptic argument in the limited space available here, and also to introduce aspects better articulated by people who actually have some expertise in the various field associated with climate science.

My various links were to that end...noting that MSM does "not" cover the intricacies in detail. People who come to this thread are obviously interested in the subject, so I presented those inks for their perusal.

I've found this paper on your site - http://www.donaitkin.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/climatechange/The%20debate%20over%20AGW.pdf

Is it the one to which you refer?

Hi Poirot,

<< My point is that the overall tactics being adopted by both sides of the contest are stunting debate >>.

You said you << offered various "reasoned and considered articles based upon research" to counter the three "salvos", each from prominent trained experts in the field>>.

You did not.

You posted a link and an extract full of vilification and abuse conforming precisely with the defense mechanisms I have listed. “ professional climate-change deniers”, “climate denial”, “the new right-wing populist movement”, the “Tea Party in the United States” and “elements of the Liberal Party in Australia”.

Your links also contradict each other. The first insists it is good science from IPCC experts, then your second link contradicts this and says it has not been about science since the mid 2000’s? Which of your links would you like deleted?

Interestingly, none of the articles from Don Aitkin or the authors quoted, contain anything even close to abuse, name calling or vilification. So why do your links?

These comments Poirot are not “reasoned and considered articles based upon research” they are simply motive questioning (shooting the messenger) and abuse. You did exactly what I accused you of,

You just post links, avoid responding to content like the plague and variously use the tactics outlined previously.

So why are you so defensive? Why do “feel the content” rather than actually “reading “ it?

I suspect you do this because you “believe” in CAGW. Belief and faith are emotional human domains and must be defended, whereas skepticism has no position, it is just not persuaded by your belief. It has absolutely nothing to defend.

You confuse the committed position of a believer with the agnosticism of a skeptic. A believer is pro-active, the agnostic is passive. Skeptics are happy with their neutrality and do not therefore need to engage in the deniers syndrome because there is no pre-requisite.

Cont’d

<<"Denialist! Paedophile! Child-killer! You belong in prison!">>

LOL

Spot-on Jardine , you nailed it.

On a related note, Warmists are very strident in their criticism of anyone who challenges the official IPCC line if they are not an anointed climate scientist. Yet when you look the "team" of the oft linked to Skeptical Science warmist website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
you'll find it chockablock with luminaries like these below:



Rob Honeycutt "Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2."

Bärbel Winkler "lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo"

Hoskibui, "full name Höskuldur Búi Jónsson is a geologist in Iceland."
Remember how they poo-pooed Pilmer because as a geologist he wasn't competent to speak on climate issues!

Doug_bostrom "1958 model, background in broadcast engineering and management, wireless telemetry, software architecture and authorship with a focus on embedded systems, TCP/IP network engineering, systems integration".