JKJ,

Firstly you insist on a policy then, when I tell you I have one (tho' not one you're after), you call me a dictator (and the rest) for having it?

LL
Your logic is unassailable. I yield

JKJ, here's something from the great demon dictator himself, just to get you up to peak rage for today.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf

Policy proposals do not make one a dictator. Policy you may reject but which is arrived at democratically not dictatorial, from whichever side of politics it emanates.

Your usual bombast is anticipated.

Luciferase

"Firstly you insist on a policy then, when I tell you I have one (tho' not one you're after), you call me a dictator (and the rest) for having it?"

I'm not insisting on a policy, you are. I'm merely pointing out that you can't demonstrate it's rational, even in its own terms, which indeed you haven't done.

So that's a fail.

"I did not appeal to authority by my link..."

Yes you did? You posted a link asserting that "scientists" have "sorted" all the issues, no need for independent thought. Mere blind credulity.

DATA we want Luciferase, not appeal to authority.

" 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."

The question is not whether it's warming, it's whether man-made CO2 emissions are warming the planet to catastrophic levels, so stop lying.

You're the one openly dreaming of being a dictator, why are you blaming me for pointing it out?

You need to make your own argument. If you can't be bothered thinking for yourself, I'm not going to try to put together your argument for you by following links to people making the same ASSUMPTIONS.

We've already established you're wrong, because you don't know the values you are pretending to know and to improve on, so your proposed policy can't do what it's supposed to do.

Adding the usual serve of appeal to absent authority doesn't improve your position, it worsens it.

Luciferase, it all boils down to this. All you've done is enter the discussion having assumed that we face catastrophic global warming by man's CO2, and if you're so dumb that you can't understand that this mere assumption doesn't just pre-decide all questions in your favour, and so dumb that you can't understand that government can't be just baldly assumed to make everything better, then you don't have the intellectual capacity to participate in the discussion.

JKJ, It's not me insisting on a policy addressing your four points. Read your own posts, if you can plumb your own obfuscation. Perhaps you have read my position on a past thread, but not here.

My link was not an appeal to authority. I used a link to summarize points I'd make were I bothered to expend the keystrokes.

There is no alternative to the CO2 hypothesis that is sustainable and acceptable to the vast majority of the scientific community. It's the reigning hypothesis, like it or not, and we should operate accordingly rather than denying the evidence or hoping it's all wrong. Even Rupert was saying that for awhile, before he became President of Australia.

"...so dumb that you can't understand that government can't be just baldly assumed to make everything better,..."

If it is your point that Gov't may not be able to deal with the consequences of mitigation failure, and that setting policy will be difficult to impossible, I agree with you completely.

So you really think I aspire to dictatorship? Do I have to do smiley faces for you :)? Let go of the bone.

Luciferase

You said:
“My first act as dictator would be to round up all the deniers and get them to work on building dykes etc.”

And you’re *not* dreaming of being a dictator? You just wish you could put anyone who disagrees with you to forced labour – for the greater good of course?

“My link was not an appeal to authority.”

Of course it’s an appeal to absent authority. You haven’t shown your data or your assumptions or your working in here, have you? You’re relying on the people you refer off to, to make your argument for you, and expecting everyone here to just flaccidly accept it, for no other reason than that you refer to them as having it all sorted. What is that but appeal to authority?

That’s not science. That’s just mere credulity. You can't just assume you're right in the first place, and expect everyone to just defer to your opinion, which, on critical analysis, is all the CAGW argument amounts to, every time.

“I used a link to summarize points I'd make were I bothered to expend the keystrokes.”

The point is, if you can’t be bothered making your own argument, then you really should shut up. What if you’re as lazy in your thinking as you are in your typing?

“If it is your point that Gov't may not be able to deal with the consequences of mitigation failure, and that setting policy will be difficult to impossible, I agree with you completely.”

Thank you. That’s what we’ve just established by establishing government is not capable of the knowledge (let alone the virtue) to set policy, let alone carry it out.

Which is the end of the entire CAGW argument. Your side lost. We have just established that what you’re suggesting is not possible in theory, let alone in practice. Good-bye. Perhaps you could go and frighten children with hobgoblin stories. Tell them it’s based entirely on government-sponsored peer-review and they might implicitly believe you.

JKJ,

"... You can't just assume you're right in the first place, and expect everyone to just defer to your opinion, which, on critical analysis, is all the CAGW argument amounts to, every time."

Where is your argument specifically on"data" and scientific conclusions emanating from that data?

As far as I can see all you have is your line ".. it’s an appeal to absent authority."

That's the beginning and the end of it as far as your "argument" is concerned.

Fancy Luciferase linking to people who are actually trained and have expertise in the various areas concerned with climate science....that which you dismiss tritely as "appealing to absent authority"

The only thing absent here is your scientific rebuttal.

At least cohenite & Co, with their attempts to scramble scientific reality, don't fall back on the worn out and interchangeable rhetoric that you employ for every subject you enter into on this forum.