Tombee, blind unquestioning faith in authority is not "science". Science *never* goes by what authorities say, *always* what the data says.

If you can't prove what you're asserting then you either need to have the honesty to admit it, or shut up. Posting a link is not any kind of proof, it's just appeal to absent authority, which was identified as a logical fallacy over 2,300 years ago.

Obviously propositions that are fallacious cannot be science. But that's all you've offered.

There is no science that says we should reduce carbon emissions because science does not supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them.

Just because you haven't thought through the issues, doesn't mean everyone else is using the same fallacious conceited up-yourself methodology.

You are only showing that:
a) you don't understand the first thing about science
b) you have not been following the debate about global warming.

Not only that, but your *assumption* that someone, somewhere, somehow, must have the data to support you is NOT CORRECT. Years of demolishing your anti-human totalitarian pap on this forum has shown that, when challenged, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the WARMISTS' arguments ALWAYS comes down to NOTHING BUT one of the following three fallacies:
- appeal to absent authority (ho hum)
- assuming CAGW as your premise (ho hum)
- ad hom (ho hum).

And you've just done all three of the them in the one thread - situation normal, ho hum.

Just because your methodology proceeds by vapid circular slogans, doesn't mean everyone else is doing the same.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Prove your chain of reasoning by DATA. I will be particularly interested the workings by which you calculated the human valuations in the status quo versus your policy counter-factual.

If you can't prove what's in issue by data, then don't bore us with mere repetition of your superstitious incantations.

From cohenite: "Even fanatical AGW supporters like Santer, Trenberth, England and Schmidt now concede that global temperatures have paused..."

Concede? There isn't even an argument about this. What needs defending is why surface air temperature hasn't fallen significantly more given closely consecutive La Ninas, a solar minimum and high aerosol levels.

If ocean warming is as imaginary as AGW skeptics claim, then where has the heat come from to stave cooling from occurring to the extent it has in similar recorded circumstances past? If one blames natural variability for those occasions, but not for the recent hiatus, on what basis? It's also hard to see why 2000-2009 is the hottest decade since 1850, despite the pause. Is it just a coincidence of yet more natural variability coming at once?

Here's a nice data site: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global
The temperature record shows cooling periods associated with events such as high aerosol levels, sunspots and La Nina's. Why haven't we seen the same dip now, rather than a virtual plateau? It's disconcerting.

From Tombee, "And anyway, the scientists, as I keep saying, will sort it out, even thought that might be a painfully slow process." Scientists have sorted it, the facts are in, we're warming http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html Furthermore, the 2 degrees of warming (by 2100) he is unconcerned about assumes an immediate commencement of global action which, sadly, seems remote. A 3-4 degree rise appears more likely as things stand.

JKJ, from someone employing proof by bold assertion as oft as you, your attack is somewhat rich and windy.

Thanks for that Luci; Climate4you is indeed a good site.

Your point about a "virtual plateau" and "hiatus" despite cooling factors such a neutral La Nina and reduced solar is a superficially good one.

But a closer analysis shows solar can explain all the temperature movement, up and down over the recent period since the LIA which finished about 1850 and that's straight from the IPCC and Wiki:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

It is true that TSI is now declining but it is declining from a high base which means its still above average which explains both the flat but still high temperature; see Figures 1 and 17:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

The connection between TSI and temperature is irrefutable, see figure 5:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0020v1.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113003651

There is good evidence that the relatively small variation in TSI can produce the observed temperature response through amplification mechanisms:

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

Anyway the point of this is that the decline in TSI can explain the stop in temperatures, just as the increase in TSI explained the increase.

It should also be noted that the AGW scientists such as Trenberth, England, Santer etc who are looking at winds, volcanoes and aerosols to explain the temperature halt can all be shown to be counter to physical observations.

Which leaves the point that temperature has halted for a climatically significant period despite the alleged main cause for temperature increase, CO2, continuing to increase. That is the point; the temperature halt disproves AGW.

Luciferase

"JKJ, from someone employing proof by bold assertion as oft as you, your attack is somewhat rich and windy."

I never employ proof by mere assertion, and I will prove any assertion that you or anyone cares to challenge by proving your challenge rests on logical fallacy, self-contradiction or factual absurdity. Go ahead.

Posting links and expecting me to go on an errand to construct your argument for you is not evidence or argument; it's just appeal to absent authority = fallacy = irrational. And these are the people who want to talk down to everyone else about "science"!

"What needs defending is why surface air temperature hasn't fallen significantly more given closely consecutive La Ninas, a solar minimum and high aerosol levels."

Nothing needs defending unless you have first established any justification of policy, even if you are right as to the climatology.

Let's assume, very much in your favour, that there's no issue as to the climate science, okay? What could be fairer than that?

Okay, show us how you have worked out:
a) that the benefits of warming do not outweigh the detriments. The usual tactic of simply ignoring all benefits, or assuming that any human action is instrinsically detrimental, is all we've ever seen on here, but perhaps you can do better?
b) the human valuations in the status quo versus your policy counterfactual
c) how government is going to acquire the knowledge and capacity to allocate scarce resources to their most valued ends, for all humans' subjective evaluations, both now, and indefinitely into the future
d) make sure you show your workings for how you have discounted futurity.

Go ahead. Notice I'm not telling you you can't do it? I'm *asking* whether you can do it.

But do you think we can't see that you're bullsh!tting? That all you've got is a false pretence of knowledge? That your pretended concern for humanity is fake? That your policies are killing millions and millions of people every year?

Thanks, Don, for clarifying the Flannery situation.
Tombee, the outstanding feature of the AGW movement is its dishonesty. The site to which you referred us makes the blatant assertion that computer models have made accurate predictions.

They have not. The reality is that there has been no global warming for at least 17 years. The fraud backing scientists assert that this is just a “pause”, and the globe is still warming. Every year they raise the cry, “hottest year on record”.
David Jones, the fraud backer from our BOM asserted 2013 to be Australia’s hottest year on record, ignoring a record which showed 1939 to be hotter.

Your site makes positive mention of Hansen the NASA scientist who used his position to corrupt recorded data to show warming. The data before his tampering showed a cooling trend for temperatures in the US.

What the site does not show is any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions affect climate. All it presents is conjecture, in this regard, no valid scientific observation.

Human emissions do affect climate, but the effect is so trivial as not to be measurable.

We know that the ex Labor Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Greg Combet, purchased a waterfront home on the sea, living there during his time in office. When he urinated in the ocean adjoining his home, he polluted it, but like human emissions into the atmosphere, it was trivial, and not measurable.

I will take your failure, Tombee, as an admission that, as far as you are aware, there is no scientific basis for AGW.

From cohenite: "....temperature has halted for a climatically significant period" and "...the temperature halt disproves AGW."

So we're down to ye olde "significant period" argument and solar attribution theory, which has already been more than adequately countered but here's the latest I can find:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.41008

To JKJ, in order:

a) What benefit is there in a 3-4 degree rise? We're not on a path towards less. If we were your question would deserve an answer, which you can find worked out by others , but not without conjecture.

b)Not sure exactly what this means, but someone is going to have to do the valuation when faced with the circumstances. We've lately come to a decision on rural hardship, but that will be but one of a myriad of future problems. My first act as dictator would be to round up all the deniers and get them to work on building dykes etc.

c)Given the trajectory this gov't has chosen, when TSHTF, there will be no choice but to acquire knowledge and develop emergency capacity.

d) Discounting futurity seems something this gov't has already chosen. We're living for now, not a future for our descendants.

JKJ: "appeal to absent authority = fallacy = irrational" I did not appeal to authority by my link and I do not need you to "..assume, very much in your favour, that there's no issue as to the climate science, okay?" That planet is warming is axiomatic.