Yes, Squeers....

Good old, Hasbeen, he's a vaudeville hack from way back.

Here's a pearler!....

"The human species was developed to recycle some of the CO2 lost to the flora of the earth, mostly by precipitation to the ocean floor.

Fact is we have only just started correcting that balance soon enough for the good of all life. Burning long unavailable carbon will help restore what was a fading ecosystem, headed for extinction."

Burning long unavailable credibility, more like it.....

Wood, trees & useful idiots all spring to mind.

Hi Has been,

Yeah, as a Scottish friend pointed out, what a calamity it would be if Scotland was one degree warmer.

Scottish humour !

Joe

Squeers
That's just discursive fetishism on your part. Your populist equivocations just excite existential and reactionary sensibilities alike, putting you in the same camp as those you despise. There are of course sensible people who don't share your ideology that society is made better by blindly crawling up the arrse of the most powerful and promoting crony capitalism while not understanding what you're talking about. Your ideology is just a discrete symptom, and you should leave discussion of political economy to people who are at least trying to be objective. For such people the question of warming, cooling, or its causes and effects, has no bearing on anthropogenic effects generally. You've got a PhD in Marxism, and you can't understand the difference between the private and the public control of the means of production BWAHAHAHAHAHAH - that would have to qualify as profoundly stupid, even in your own book, wouldn't it?

As for you our vapid trendoid pap about climatology, ecology and economics, which you have obviously picked up in the corridors of academe without understanding them - Do you think it's not obvious to everyone that you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about?

"Yes we should ditch the 2 degree target, or any target based on business as usual. The problem demands radical action; we have to rethink the whole human enterprise; that's the real challenge."

Don't tell me, lemme guess.... Socialisation of the means of production?

You've got 6 children and want to talk down to everyone else about sustainability? How about you tell us what radical action you've done to change your own business-as-usual. Stopped buying and selling things on those wicked markets? Stopped using those wicked petrol-driven vehicles? Stopped consuming things produced by those wicked capitalists? Stopped using those wicked fossil fuels?

Squeers has given us a perfect example of the warmists' self-contradictory, conceited, kindergarten level intellectual and moral drivel. And these are the people who want to forcibly re-organise the whole world's economy and ecology - when they won't even take their own advice themselves?

Come on, genius, answer the questions.

JKJ - aka Peter Hume, etc,

"....BWAHAHAHAHAHAH...."

Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue against that sort of rock-solid reasoning on this or any subject.

He employs "....BWAHAHAHAHAHAH..." when he's giving his other favourites a rest - like "fallacy" - and "appealling to absent authority".

" ....Do you think it's not obvious to everyone that you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about?"

When JKJ's most forceful rebuttal is "You've lost the argument" - and "....BWAHAHAHAHAHAH..." you know you're dealing with a giant of intellect.

And then we're dished up this old canard:

".....How about you tell us what radical action you've done to change your own business-as-usual. Stopped buying and selling things on those wicked markets? Stopped using those wicked petrol-driven vehicles? Stopped consuming things produced by those wicked capitalists? Stopped using those wicked fossil fuels?"

Which is always a handy device for who never go near any climate science, but who rely on their hackneyed generic argument for any subject they happen to parachute in on.

JKJ, why don't you write a paper accusing climate scientists of having the gall to live in the 21st century and employing modern technology to come to their conclusions? (how dare they not live a sustainable life in caves and wear loin cloths!)

Poirot
At no stage have you established any basis for saying that science supports anything you are contending for.

By your own criterion, you are not qualified to comment on the entire issue because you are not a climatologist.

Merely endlessly squarking the word "science", ignoring all the issues, and posting links to the Guardian and the ABC, proves nothing relevant and is not science.

When asked for you to prove what you're claiming, you have nothing but evasion.

We have already established that you have no rational basis for your support for climate policy here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0

And we'll prove it again, shall we?

What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):
- how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
- how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.

All
Poirot's response is emblematic of all warmists argument, and that is, being faced with the inability to defend their entire belief system when challenged, to just ignore the fact, and keep endlessly asserting their claims backed by every kind of diversionary tactic, supercilious condescension, and intellectual dishonesty.

That's it. That's their entire liturgy.