Furthermore...

JKJ,

Your rhetoric on this forum pertaining to any and every subject consists of the same argument.

It's as if you carry around a huge sack containing ideas akin to LEGO bricks - and you set about constructing the same argument consisting of the same themes - yet modelling each construction to fit the subject at hand.

Each thought brick is interchangeable and will fit each subject by aligning it carefully with the theme at hand.

You're another one who mistakes fluency with the ability to say something new.

Poirot

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

What data are you talking about? In case you haven't noticed, neither Luciferase nor you have supplied any. My argument is that you can't prove what you're alleging by reference to data and reason, but only by bleating the word "science" as if this automatically decides all issues in favour of more taxes!

If you can't see that appealing to authority, is appealing to authority, then it just means you're too dumb to participate in the discussion, simple as that. Merely assuming you're right = too dumb. Posting links in substitution of argument = too dumb. Blindly following what others say without question = too dumb. Assuming government is a selfless benevolent superbeing = too dumb. Posting links to the ABC or the Guardian = too dumb.

But that's all you've got, and all you've ever done, and your dumb assumption that there must be some clever person out there somewhere who has it all sorted is also too dumb because ... guess what? ... they're all just doing what you're doing!

It's like talking to complete imbeciles.

JKJ,

"If you can't see that appealing to authority, is appealing to authority, then it just means you're too dumb to participate in the discussion, simple as that. Merely assuming you're right = too dumb. Posting links in substitution of argument = too dumb. Blindly following what others say without question = too dumb. Assuming government is a selfless benevolent superbeing = too dumb. Posting links to the ABC or the Guardian = too dumb."

Well there you go, folks

JKJ's famous smack-down, "You're appealing to absent authority"!

JKJ, you might note that this is an ordinary garden variety forum, links are given because there exists a word and post limit, and the majority here are not scientists. Plenty of links are given to the work and conclusions of people who are scientists. According to you, that's appealing to absent authority.

And if someone happens to call you out on your blanket dismissal - they're labelled "dumb"

I'll tell you what's dumb - you dismissing scientific conclusions resting on your worn out universal LEGO-like thought bombs.

Poirot, the question is whether there is any science to back the assertion that human emissions contribute to climate change. The answer is that there is no scientific demonstration that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

In the absence of any science, support offered to the AGW fraud has to be based on ignorance or dishonesty.

JKJ is referring to ability to construct an argument when he characterizes the specimens as “too dumb”. The actual references to ABC and Guardian have to be classified as “dishonest”, as I do not consider that they could plead ignorance.

How about you, Poirot, in regard to your baseless assertion that JKJ is “dismissing scientific conclusions” do you plead ignorance? Your default position is dishonesty.

There is no science to dismiss. AGW is based on fraudulent assertion, not on science.

The climate change authority has yet to produce a single item of original research. Its prime purpose was to cut and paste the offerings of other organisations with the word Australia put in, to justify the disgusting lie that Juliar told to Australia before the 2010 election.

Now that Labor was tossed out of office for continuous lying, the CCA is now producing reports that no one reads and is as useful as teats on a bull.

Labor's refusal to let this fossil die, and preference to keep splashing taxpayer's money against the wall is testament to Labor's contempt for the voter.

A little test for JKJ,

I referred to a piece of research, to which cohenite responded, at http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.41008

Now, without saying "I'll just have whatever he's (cohenite) having", why don't you make your own refutation of the research and of my further analysis, which was:

"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 [...along with the much lower than expected cooling...(my edit)]?

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."

Please put my mind at rest JKJ, with your analysis. Here's some rough data: in the late 1800's, cooling was approx 0.4 degrees, early 1900s approx 0.3, mid 40's to 1950 approx 0.4, early to mid-60's approx 0.3 degrees. There are more examples of these sorts of coolings which I'm sure you can find. The hiatus since 1998 is about a tenth of theses coolings, many with similar underlying circumstances.

I freely admit to not being a climate scientist, but I am capable of occasional critical thought, I like to think :)(smiley face!...smiley face!). I would hope JKJ might be allowed to stand on his own feet by his mates here, to prove himself not to be the dumb imbecile he calls anybody disagreeing with him.

I'm not expecting a particularly scything refutation, just evidence of serious critical thought, based on data, that he wouldn't mind being politely interrogated a little.

It would be nice to discover whether he is just a rude literary critic a rude scientifically-minded one, or both.

JKJ?