Luciferase
You have not made a case to answer. Mere temperature variation, of itself, does not justify coercion, it's a complete non sequitur.

further:
The error level of any thermometer used to measure temperatures is about 1 degree C. Any measurement than plus or minus 1 is a statistical construct.
The concept of the average temperature of the planet is meaningless.
The satellite measurements of the temperatures are not in agreement with the government-adjusted official average temperatures of the globe.
The “scientists” have falsified both their data and reports.
There have been repeatedly much greater global temperature variations during human evolution.
It has been a lot warmer in the past.
There is no proof that anything we’re measuring now is other than natural variability for which we do not as yet have any good explanation.
Your assumption that you know everything in the world, and outside it, that causes all temperature variation in the planet, as well as all the trends, is just simply nonsense.
The pretensions of “scientists” to know what temperature the planet should be are not science and are self-interested corrupt bogus nonsense.

Plus, you’re confusing normative questions with technical questions which are categorically different. Even if the temperature of the planet was warming, so what? That doesn’t mean
a) it would be automatically bad
b) you are capable of knowing what to aim at, even in theory, let alone practice
c) you can guarantee that the result will not be worse rather than better.

For example, where I live there is a notable micro-climatic difference from only a few kilometres away. Now suppose the globe’s temperatures rose by 3 degrees. Think of all the areas of Eurasia and North America which are now tundra or taiga, which would become arable. You are presuming to look on all that vast area, and just know that the total result would be negative, on the basis of … what? You know what the distribution and abundance of species
a) is,
b) would be, and
c) should be?
It’s complete bullsh!t, can’t you see that?

Plus you’re not taking into account the cost in terms of human lives. There’s just a big blank on the map of your intellect where the human values should be. It’s no use saying you’re doing it for the sake of benefit to humans, because whether or not they would benefit is precisely what’s in issue. You have to prove it, not just assume it. So just *think* about that for a sec. What would you need to know, in order for your belief system to be true? Mere airy allegations of aggregate statistical concepts, and vagaries about collectivist “who knows?”, won’t cut it, because you’re talking about the lives of real human beings.

“Please put my mind at rest JKJ”

Sure. What’s causing your concern is the simply irrational belief that government has the
a) knowledge
b) competence, and
c) selflessness
to fine-tune the temperature of the planet be decreeing curly light-bulbs and taxes. Your main problem isn’t in the climate science, it’s in the social science. At no stage have you considered whether government, in its nature, is capable of what you’re blindly believing it can and should do; nor whether the ultimate cost/benefit result – however you define the ultimate human welfare criterion – might not be worse under what you advocate, than without. It’s just simply an irrational belief system with no basis in reason whatsoever, let alone science.

There’s plenty of critical reasons to see that the whole superstition doesn’t stack up, and you’ve just ignored 3 stand-alone refutations to reply. I reject your whole approach that you know everything in the world, and your job is to fine-tune the climate, the ecology and the whole human economy. It’s stupid and evil.

You don’t like me saying you’re “too dumb” to comment, but that is exactly the argument of the warmists. The difference is you’re advocating policies that are killing large numbers of people, and I’m not.

Poirot
We’ve already established that you are too dumb to participate in the discussion.

How do you guys like it?

JKJ,

Talking of dumb....

Let's take a peek at some of your mutterings and see how they relate to a "civilisation" which has enjoyed a narrow climate niche comfort in which to evolve.

"The concept of the average temperature of the planet is meaningless."

...In the case of human civilisation, it's far from meaningless.

"The “scientists” have falsified both their data and reports."

...Bunkum

"There have been repeatedly much greater global temperature variations during human evolution"

...not since human civilisation got under way.

"It has been a lot warmer in the past."

...which may have suited molluscs and trilobites and giant tree ferns, etc, but perhaps not so good for human civilisation.

"There is no proof that anything we’re measuring now is other than natural variability for which we do not as yet have any good explanation."

...more Bunkum.

"Your assumption that you know everything in the world, and outside it, that causes all temperature variation in the planet, as well as all the trends, is just simply nonsense."

...a rubbish comment.Scientists work with empirical data. At the moment we have a plateau in air surface temperatures "at record levels". They don't claim to now everything, but they know more than you.

"The pretensions of “scientists” to know what temperature the planet should be are not science and are self-interested corrupt bogus nonsense."

....the pretension is all yours. They're merely pointing out that our activities are contributing to heating the planet and may put our civilsation in danger.

Gawd, if that's the best you can do when you chuck away your hackneyed argument, then I understand why you adhere to it so strongly.

JKJ: "You have not made a case to answer. Mere temperature variation, of itself, does not justify coercion, it's a complete non sequitur."

I always wondered what an ostrich thinks while it has its head in the sand. Thanks for the heads up on that, and for revealing you haven't got a scientific bone in your body.

So, it's all "mere temperature variation"? Sorry, but this doesn't account for the unprecedented, rapid rate of global temperature rise.

You are so confident that our planet can absorb anything we dish out and arrogantly assertive that man hasn't anything to do with this temperature rise. Yet I remind you of your words "I never employ proof by mere assertion, and I will prove any assertion that you or anyone cares to challenge......".

You have your hypothesis, "Man cannot affect global temperature and has nothing to do with its unprecedented rise". You've seen the scientific arguments against you. Respond in kind.

More is expected of you than claiming those opposing your hypothesis and striving for action are dumb imbeciles and responsible for "killing millions and millions of people every year" (How so, BTW?).

Maybe Abbott would have been better to stick with Flannery, if he thought the CSIRO was on his side he has made a mistake. They say it as it is.

Poirot’s position is clarified. She is neither dumb nor ignorant, she is dishonest. She projects her low self worth on to the community, and considers the disgraceful fraud of AGW to be what we deserve.

Luciferase has been made aware that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any significant effect on climate. That is why the mendacious IPCC, faced with the fact that despite massive expenditure of funds and time there is no scientific basis, come up with their pathetic assertion that it is “94% certain”.

You cannot plead ignorance Luciferase. You are either boneheaded or dishonest.
579, under this government, CSIRO may become a reputable scientific body again. Flannery will always be a mischievous clown.