Jardine,
You confuse belief and fact. The former is more associated with the subconscious mind that provides the conscious mind with opinion based on part or all of a persons experiences, as recorded in the subconscious. In general, it is not possible to deconstruct such beliefs into a path another may follow. Peer group views and many other factors influence a persons set of beliefs.

Scientific research is based on rational thinking. Such thought processes are documented in research papers, allowing independent researchers to follow an authors arguments and propositions that lead to a papers conclusions. These independents can reanalyse the data and then accept or reject, with reasons, the papers conclusions.

Decades ago, such processes identified inkages between smoking and cancer.

The process you are using is identical to those used decades ago to delay formal acceptance of such a link (ref Marshall Institute). Thousands of people lost lives unnecessarily early because of such obfuscation.

You continue a not so fine tradition.

Pseudo-psychologist mind-reading, ho hum. Is that the best you can do?

This is the warmists' surrogate measure for actual temperature data.

Notice how Tony153 has posted nothing but fallacies in this whole thread? And these are the ones who want to talk down to everyone else about the meaning of science.

Tony153's gibe about loss of human life, coming from a warmist, is beneath contempt.

"Scientific research is based on rational thinking."

Only if it is. If it's based on fallacies, then obviously it's not scientific. What we're trying to establish, is the *non-fallacious* basis of your argument. Still looking.

For example, show us how you worked out that the alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that policy can improve, is on balance worse rather than better. Show us how you took into account the ecological data and the subjective human values in the status quo versus your preferred policy counter-factual.

Go ahead. Show us what makes your belief rational. Replying to the effect that you believe it on the basis that someone else told you so, and you implicitly believe them because they're persons in authority, just proves you have no rational justification for your beliefs.

Tony, you do really do need to change your dinner party guest list.

Your current ones are way out of date, & feeding you a pile of old bulldust. Repeating it is making you look rather foolish.

Tony, what you need to understand is that it's not just you who's trotting out fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, it's the so-called scientists in the so-called science you're talking to.

For an example, look at this latest extract from a scientific paper cited by Anthony Watts. The authors say:
"A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/

So right there, they're saying that global warming is "on pause" and there's "a hiatus", in other words:
- the DATA are saying it's not happening, and
- the "scientists" are simply ignoring that, and just baldly ASSUMING that it is part of a larger pattern in which it IS happening of which they have NO KNOWLEDGE because it's in the future.

Now they're ADMITTING that it's not happening "in the air" i.e. it's NOT HAPPENING.

Okay? So that's not science, is it? Evidence of lack of global warming is not a "scientific" basis for asserting the existence of global warming, is it? Please admit that you understand that that is not science; otherwise you're just too stupid to participate in the discussion.

Now there's a whole empire of this kind of obviously biased, circular, ILLOGICAL rubbish. And this is what you and the warmists are calling "science".

It's a disgraceful state of affairs, and we owe a big debt of gratitude to the PRIVATE parties who are spending their time unpicking the knitting of these frauds.

Who would have thought that science would be so corrupted in our time, and that we would see this kind of blatant dishonesty being paid for throughout a vast international empire of these nasty conceited self-centred frauds, careless of the fact that the billions of dollars being diverted from productive activity, to the destructionism they advocate, has been and will be the cause of untold human deaths.

Well J.K.J:
If warmists are just a bunch of money grubbing fraudsters as you seem to claim?
Why don't we just call their bluff?
And just roll out cheaper than coal, carbon free thorium based power!
If they're coupled to very local micro grids, we could more than halve the cost of energy, and indeed, reinstate a very viable, energy dependent manufacturing industry!
Which as you know, is being quite literally killed before our very eyes, by high energy costs, and indeed, all the other charges that include an energy cost; water, transport and so on.
And improve that intended outcome, by finally addressing long overdue, real tax reform and quite massive simplification, which together, could make us the high tech capital of the world!?
And aid and abet that very outcome, by converting all our domiciles, to locally produced, waste converted energy?
Waste> methane> ceramic cell> endlessly sustainable energy on demand, and equally endless, free domestic hot water!
And for less than a quarter of what we shell out now!
And only ring in these same changes on sound economic grounds alone!
And if having done so, effectively destroy any and all warmest arguments!
Then can we, raise a convivial glass to plain old, old-fashioned common sense, rapidly becoming the most rare commodity on the endlessly bickering, [can't see the forest for the trees,] planet!
And another to, it's the economy stupid!
Rhrosty.

"Why don't we just call their bluff?
And just roll out cheaper than coal, carbon free thorium based power!"

1. Who's "we"?
2. Why don't you do it yourself? According to your theory, you'll do well at the same time as you do good.
3. If the reason is because of scarcity of resources, what makes you think that problem is going to be magically solved by giving it to government?
4. Why should other people be forced to sacrifice their values for yours?
5. Where do you guys keep getting the nutty idea that you have the goodness, knowledge or competence to forcibly re-design society?