JKJ,

"Tony153 and Poirot are fresh from having done just that here....running away after going quiet, and now here they appear again, re-running the same belief system which we - and they - have now just demonstrated to be baseless and dishonest."

Lol!...the only thing you have demonstrated is your ability to press your rhetoric button and deploy your generic spiel to any and every subject - no matter what is on discussion.

Exhibit 1:

"The pattern we keep seeing here is that the warmists enter all full of bustle and presumptuousness - like you did - assuming your belief system is true, talking down to everyone else about the meaning of "science", and spraying ad hominem and appeal to absent authority when challenged.

Now I maintain that their belief system is irrational and therefore cannot be scientific. If one can prove the argument is fallacious, and you can't disprove it, that's the end of the matter as far as the science is concerned.

So what keeps happening is - once we have parried all their fallacious bluster - and ask critical questions that disprove either the skeptics or the warmists on the general issue, the warmists go quiet, slink off, and pretend they weren't ever on the scene. Then they pop up somewhere else later on re-running all the same presumptuous assertions they are unable to defend."

We've all read it a million times...any subject...climate...govt...bread...cheese....out comes JKJ's ACME OLO spiel.

When you've got something to say that tallies up with nothing more than calling your opponents "dishonest", I might even deign to have a conversation with you.

You cant argue with deliberately stupid people Poirot.

http://www.wikkkard.net/articles/StupidPeople.html

Manufactured history?
Paleontology scientists the world over, hang your heads in shame. You've all just been outed by Dr. Bill, who knows more on this subject than all of you put together!?
Otherwise, why would he question the validity of your research?
Age related Paranoia and or delusions of grandeur perhaps?
I love a good conspiracy theory, on the basis; there is always someone in charge, who know what result is required, and exactly what needs to be done to achieve it!
A bit like the tobacco industry conspiracy, which tried to buy time and many more billions, just by systematically denying or questioning the facts! Ditto the Asbestos industry!
And it seems some very well rewarded medical practitioners/experts were part and parcel of that very professional, decades long obfuscation/deceit!
And then only for very dirty, blood soaked money!
The only conspiracy on self evident display here, I believe, is that patently promulgated by the truly parasitic fossil fuel industry.
Yes sure, if all you were worried about was the always upward line on the profit graph, and how best to protect a 4 trillion dollar plus a year industry and maximized profits!?
Then you'd take the successful formula, of those aforementioned, and just keep casting aspersions and or doubt!

Slink off?
This site allows only so many posts per 24 hours, and therefore its hard to reply to every questionnaire.
To quote Robbie burns, facts are cheils tha dinna whing. And in my penultimate post, all I quoted was verifiable facts!

Dr. Bill, I suggest you try and refute my list of facts, and quote your sources.
If only to force you to actually look at the actual evidence, rather than rubbish it/question it; and it seems, only backed by an increasingly irrelevant reputation, and or, total loss of professional credibility!
Rhrosty.

(word and post limits got the better of me - this is my last post)

Postscript for Dr Bill:

Sounding the fog-horn (or blowing a dog-whistle) about the scientific method, from an ideological perspective, on an opinion site like this, doesn’t cut the mustard either (imho).

However, if that is what Jennifer wants to do, and you have a bee in your bonnet that needs to sting, so be it. Just remember that neither she, nor you, will get much kudos from the scientific community in ‘publishing’ stuff or having hissy-fits in ‘The Australian’ or on-line op-eds.

I’m sure you understand the metaphorical argument (despite some that would play the ad-hom card).

Cheers

.

Postscript for Jardine:

Your “challenge” is not at all clear.

Are you are asking me if I think there is a link between Australia’s temperature record (homogenised or not), the impact of greenhouse gases on the temperature record, the current government’s policies in response to climate change, and how it effects our society?

If so, this article may help:

http://tinyurl.com/q2v6khk

I agree with Tony Windsor.

If not, perhaps Poirot has a point.

"Researchers at the National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark had been storing the glass plates since explorer Knud Rasmussen's expedition to the southeast coast of Greenland in the early 1930s..... Taken together, the imagery shows that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, said Jason Box, associate professor of geography and researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2152004/Lost-photos-prove-Greenlands-ice-melting-FASTER-80-years-ago-today.html

We have examples like this all the time where there is undeniable proof of climate changes that occurred before, came back to what we call normal now, over a fairly short period of time, and then deteriorate again. Climate change never stops and its not reliably predictable.

We often see news reports like "the worst storm in 70 years", "the biggest rainfall in 100 years", the hottest day since 1902, coldest winter in 45 years, etc as examples that global warming is happening. What was causing those fluctuations and climate extremes back then? What was happening was the natural cycle and rhythms of nature, as it is today.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Just one other comment: Rhosty raised the challenge to 'denialists' to invest in coastal property in the hope they will all be washed away by a 3 metre tidal flash flood of melted ice. Did you know your Guru Tim Flannery bought a house on low lying coastal property around the same time he made his prediction Sydney Airport would be under water by 2010?

DavidK

What’s the point of discussing it, if I can prove what I’m saying is right and what you’re saying is wrong, and if you can’t prove your own line of reasoning or disprove mine, but you still won’t accept it, won’t admit it, and will not accept a rational proof or disproof? How can the issue ever be brought to a rational standard?

If there is no question that can answer the issue one way or the other, then it’s not capable of rational determination.

But if anyone, including me, can ask you questions that will categorically decide the matter one way or the other, and you can’t answer them and ignore them, because you know if you do answer them you’ll lose the argument, then … what? What should be the consequence for you?

The problem in OLO AGW debates is that we keep bringing the warmists to the critical issue, and then, over and over again, faced with having to answer the critical questions that prove them wrong, they just decamp. They never admit what they can’t defend, and then just re-appear re-running all the same assumptions and arguments.

Do you think that’s acceptable?

Poirot has done this twice in the last fortnight, and repeatedly on different topics, where she can’t answer the critical questions without proving herself wrong either way. So she doesn’t answer them. She just ignores the question, and either goes quiet, or just keeps repeating her fallacious claims.

For example here - without answering the questions in issue- AGAIN! – note, she again retorts that the problem is my “rhetoric” calls her ‘dishonest’. But her dishonesty is not the premise of my argument, so it’s not ad hominem, which has been repeatedly explained to her, and which she repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands.

My *logic*, not rhetoric, proves, not assumes, that she’s being dishonest because after she is asked questions on the general issue that would either disprove me or her, she refuses to answer and just keeps repeating all the fallacious claims that the general issue would settle, and that the questions disprove.