warmair I'm not going to be sent on an errand to construct your argument for you.

You have only demonstrated that you've got nothing but appeal to blind unquestioning faith in absent authority - the opposite of science, so you are only proving my point that you have no rational basis for your beliefs in climate policy.

"There seems to be a moderate consensus among ‘climate scientists’ that the outcome is now inevitable, the tipping points have been passed, the climate will change, with all the dire predictions now certain."

The supposed climate scientist consensus is about ideology, not science. 'Pseudo-science' is the closest it gets to 'science'.

JK.J
I see no difficulty in relying on absent authority, for example I trust Newton’s equations of motion despite the fact that he is long dead. A typical science paper will give references to various sources, which have been checked and tested by others and will attempt to build on that work. It is entirely reasonable for me to rely on climate scientists to form my views on the subject, which is very different to basing ones views on some blogger on the internet with no expertise on the subject.

If I wanted too I could do an experiment to prove that CO2 absorbs infrared light but why would I bother seeing as how the experiment has been done 1000s of times by others. This is all I actually need to know to prove that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase global temperatures.

As to the degree of impact on climate there are two simple independent approaches, the first is simply to check to see what impact of CO2 has been in past climate. The second is to calculate the energy changes for any particular level of CO2. The results are consistent and thus give us a fair degree of confidence that the amounts of CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere will indeed cause average global temperatures to rise.

warmair
I repeat, even if all that were conceded, all you would have established is a positive tendency for temperatures to rise. So what?

You still wouldn't have established
a) any problem whatsoever
b) any reason to think that government has the knowledge, competence or disinterestedness to make the situation better than worse, even in your own terms, by means of policy.

What you have is necessary but not sufficient, that's all.

You still haven't joined issue, all you've done is gone round in a circle and ended where you began.

If, according to you, you don't have to "re-invent the wheel", you're only telling us you're satisfied you're right without being able to show any reason to support what you're contending for. In other words you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion but only to tell us what you believe, and so need either to learn to be quiet when proved irrational, or to prove what you're alleging.

Go ahead. You haven't even started. Your mere circularity proves my argument, not yours.

All
Don't think the circularity and vacuity of warmair's methodology is unique to him. It's a feature of all warmist argument which we keep consistently demonstrating in here.

None of them can prove what they're alleging. They're not even aware of the issues. They think, like warmair, that by pointing to a mere wodge and heap of temperature statistics that they've proved their case in favour of policy, without even cognising, let alone proving, the all-important issues as concerns human values.

Total vapidity.

Jardine K. Jardine: None of them can prove what they're alleging. They're not even aware of the issues. They think, like warmair, that by pointing to a mere wodge and heap of temperature statistics that they've proved their case in favour of policy, without even cognising, let alone proving, the all-important issues as concerns human values.

Indeed! They show their arrogance -- correction, ignorance -- by claiming that the science is settled.