JKJ,

"Notice how Tony153 has posted nothing but fallacies in this whole thread?"

"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."

Should have warned Tony153 that JKJ employs the same spiel for every debate he's involved in on OLO...the word "fallacy" always features prominently - as does the phrase "appeals to authority"...etc

Yup, they're all frauds (insert whomever it is that he's railing against)...they're all frauds - appealing to authority - and their argument is circular and illogical - they're dishonest - conceited ...yada, yada, yada ad nauseam.

.........

"For an example, look at this latest extract from a scientific paper cited by Anthony Watts."

A scientific paper?

From WUWT?

David Archibald

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/14/meet-david-archibald-the-fringe-scientist-predi/198886

"Fox News promoted predictions of "an impending ice age" from David Archibald, an oil and mining CEO who has said that he wants to be in DeSmogBlog's "Global Warming Disinformation Database." So far, Archibald has not won that dubious distinction -- but if he did, it would look something like this:
Credentials

B.S., Geology, Queensland University (1979)
(No other credentials yet claims to be a "climate scientist")"

"Archibald started working in coal and oil shale exploration in 1979, then went on to become a financial analyst and stockbroker before returning to oil companies in the 2000s. In 2003 he led an oil exploration company called Oilex, then joined a Canadian oil exploration company in 2006 at the same time he was CEO of mineral exploration company Westgold Resources. As of 2008, he was operating 8.6 million acres of oil exploration permits in Australia as of 2008. In a phone call with Media Matters, Archibald stated that he currently runs his own company in the oil industry."

Next.....

Notice how Poirot's post
a) makes no mention of anything relevant to the question whether we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve,
b) openly mocks the very concept of rationality,
c) evades answering the questions that prove her wrong, like my last question to Tony which he and Poirot are incapable of answering.

'Nuff said. She could be a poster-girl for the warmist religion and its new Liturgy of the Hours.

Don't bore us with more of your tedious irrelevance Poirot. Just explain how you took into account the ecological differences of the world in the status quo versus your policy counter-factual, and then human subjective valuations in them, and how you calculated the result.

Both the warmists and the skeptics keep proving the same point over and over again. The warmists have nothing but an amalgam of every kind of intellectual incoherence and moral arrogance, and all the skeptics refutations go unanswered by any rational argument.

JKJ,

"....Just explain how you took into account the ecological differences of the world in the status quo versus your policy counter-factual, and then human subjective valuations in them, and how you calculated the result."

Well there's a load of intellectual-style gobbledygook if I've ever seen it

"The warmists have nothing but an amalgam of every kind of intellectual incoherence and moral arrogance, and all the skeptics refutations go unanswered by any rational argument."

Er...you left out a reference to fallacy.

JKJ, does it ever occur to you that all you ever do is call people names and damn them with generic put downs.

That's all you do.

Full of sound and fury...signifying nothing.

Simple economics tells that if you spend less than you earn you will steadily increase your savings.
It is equally simple to work out a budget for the energy arriving at the surface of the earth and the energy leaving the earth. At the present energy is accumulating at the surface because we have restricted the outflow of energy by the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. The only question is where that energy is accumulating, considering the ocean’s capacity to store heat is well over a 1000s times greater than the atmosphere, and the oceans are 70% of the earth’s surface it is not surprising we find that this is where it is accumulating.

It is does not matter how many scientists agree or disagree about climate change, it is clear that GHGs restrict the outflow of energy from surface and this has inevitable consequences. No amount Obfuscation will alter the physics that restricting the outflow of energy will cause temperatures to rise.

All
Remember that the warmist line of reasoning is:
1. Anthropogenic global warming => 2. Ecological change/damage => 3. Catastrophe for human welfare.

Notice how, without proving steps 2 and 3. all the warmists have is a non sequitur? They would go from positive temperature data to unproved ecological damage to unjustified normative conclusion = non sequitur.

Notice how, when Tony is asked to prove steps 2. and 3. he just goes quiet?

Tony?

Tony?

Don’t slink off mate. Just answer the question. How have you taken into account the ecological variables, and human valuations, on which your entire argument depends? For example, where I live, there’s a different micro-climate from 5 km down the road, and this significantly affects production possibilities. Show how you’ve taken that into account, and then show how you’ve done that for the whole of Eurasia, the Americas, etc.

What makes you think the rest of us can’t see how credulously illogical you’re being?

On the other hand, Poirot’s summary of the ecological and human valuation issues is that they are “gobbledegook”.

In other words, Poirot does not understand the orthodoxy she is defending even though her only contribution in AGW threads is to defend the orthodoxy and criticise non-conformists: which is the religious methodology, not the scientific.

And notice Poirot’s take on rational critique of the illogic of warmists methodology:
“all you ever do is call people names and damn them with generic put downs” .
In other words, there is no such thing as rational argumentation: there is only personal argument. That’s why, when you point out that her argument is ad hominem, she replies with more ad hominem: because she thinks that that’s all there is, and what everyone else is doing.

And notice Poirot’s belief that the demonstrated irrationality of the warmist line of argument does not affect the validity of the warmist belief system?

These are all religious methodology, not scientific.

State funding of science has no defence whatsoever against this irrationality and corruption, whereas with private funding at least you can refuse to pay if you don’t agree.

JKJ,

"In other words, there is no such thing as rational argumentation: there is only personal argument. That’s why, when you point out that her argument is ad hominem, she replies with more ad hominem: because she thinks that that’s all there is, and what everyone else is doing."

Coming from a poster whose entire repertoire is based on a combination of hackneyed and convoluted stock-response rhetoric liberally laced with ad hominem...that's quite a laugh.

You never discuss the actual science or link to any scientist with a clue.

The only thing you've got is your personalised and "well-rehearsed" spiel!

It's a rolling one-size-fits-all commentary which you pull out for whichever subject you happen to be debating.

I've seen it a million times...it's always the "same" argument.