The temperatures are rising,
The ice caps are melting,
The oceans are rising
My mates are stranded on tbe expanding Antarctic ice in summer,
So it's safe and logical to buy an estaurine property in southern Australia.

Lol that about sums it all up.

'At least I am comforted by the fact that the planet has stopped warming and may well be cooling so these figures are just an interesting, though technically insignificant, random spike.

Whew. Lesser people might be worried.

Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 9 March 2014 11:22:06 AM'

At last you've accepted the science.

Phew, you've just joined the more intelligent people. Well done. But I think you might still miss my little subtlety.

Luciferase

With a rational belief system
a) you first show how it can be falsified, and
b) try to falsify it.
c) You look for fallacies in the chain of reasoning, and once you identify a link in the chain of reasoning as fallacious, you reject it. If that requires the rejecting the whole belief system, you reject the whole, and keep looking for an explanation that is falsifiable but which, try as you might, you can’t falsify.

A good example is Charles Darwin. Origin of Species contains a chapter called “Objections to the Theory”, in which he diligently collected all the objections to his theory that he could find, and tried to show how that disproves his theory.

What you’re doing is the opposite. With a superstition, like yours, you
a) assume it’s true in the first place
b) you look for something, anything, that will tend to confirm it
c) you don’t look for fallacies in your chain of reasoning or disproofs, and when you find one, you ignore it. Faced with 10, as you just have been, you ignore them all, and just keep banging away at your original circular thinking.
d) when challenged, you first appeal to high priests – absent authority
e) When that doesn’t work, you just keep going round and round in circles – “ostrich” – assumes you are right; “arrogant” – assumes you are right; “scientific” – assumes you are right - fallacies, fallacies, fallacies, ad nauseam.

Consider this. Anthropology, and history, and all experience, have shown that human beings, while capable of rational thought, are also capable of believing things that are bat-sh!t mad. All creation myths and religions are a good example. Note they invariably JUST HAPPEN to act as a cover for parasitic and privileged behaviour?

What makes you think your belief system isn’t irrational? Aristotle, indeed, developed the necessary intellectual tools to distinguish mere fables from rational argument but YOU’VE GOT TO USE THEM. Your “science” consisting of endless fallacies that you cannot refute but ignore, is not science: it’s superstition which JUST HAPPENS to involve corrupt billions.

Your belief system is just a re-run of the age-old hoo-haa about original sin, a superbeing to fix it all up, and in the selling of indulgences.

With a rational belief system, one disproof is enough. Without answering every one of the disproofs I have just given you, you are not in a position to say more is expected of me. You have it precisely backward.

Poirot
Re-proving that you are too dumb or dishonest to participate in the discussion, does not advance your originally-noted incompetence.


Luciferase
“How so, BTW?”

HOORRRAAAY! HOOORRRAAAY FOR LUCIFERASE! HOOORRRAAAY FOR LUCIFERASE!

At last he has shown willing to take the intellectual step necessary to join the non-idiot part of the population. “Idiot: person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot?s=t&path=/

Tell you what, to avoid the distinct possibility of culpable intellectual laziness on your part, instead of me walking your through the basic concepts you are talking about, with you circularly resisting all the way, why don’t you lay aside your vice of revelling in fallacies, and actually *think* about it for once? Not by assuming your belief system is right and trying to confirm it. Do it the scientific way.

Start by *stating* the whole argument from the climatology, to the ecology, to the economics, to the policy assumptions in the counterfactuals.

Show how it can be falsified. If you haven’t done this, don’t bore us with any further comment.

Then try to falsify it at every step.

Do what I repeatedly asked you to do, and which you have deliberately evaded. Actually work out the counter-factual scenarios for the ecology, and for human evaluations in both the status quo and your counter-factual scenario.

When you’ve got up to speed on the intellectual groundwork you have been too lazy and conceited to do so far, we will then be in position to consider why you are promoting the killing of large numbers of people.

Lol!...Pete's back to his hackneyed style.

How many religious references has he slopped over that one post?

1. "What you’re doing is the opposite. With a superstition, like yours"

2. "...you first appeal to high priests – absent authority.."

3. "All creation myths and religions are a good example."

4. "What makes you think your belief system isn’t irrational?"

5. "...not science: it’s superstition..."

There are a few.

So your "scientific argument" is to go nah, nah, nah, AGW is a belief system.

That's it?

That's all you've got?

Okay

JKJ, a hypothesis is a belief statement.

If it is falsifiable it falls into the realm of science. If not, it is faith. e.g. God exists.

Your hypothesis, which distills to "Man cannot affect global temperature and has nothing to do with its unprecedented rise", is falsifiable and has been falsified. If you disagree, put up a scientific refutation, not a literary critique.