Come on Luciferase, the taxpayers of the developed world are spending a billion dollars a day on this rubbish. Just how much failed research does it take to prove to you people that there is nothing to find, & no proof of the theory exists, because the theory is rubbish.

We can now see quite clearly it was only ever a vehicle for the elites, & the UN to gain control & wind back what they see as the wasteful comfort enjoyed by us, the pesants of today.

They are horrified that a mere tradesman should have cars, air conditioning, travel & all the other niceties previously available only to them.

"Perhaps you could pack your invective"

Perhaps you could stop advocating killing people, and then I'll pack my invective against your violent irrationality.

If you don't understand that the policies you advocate have real-world consequences for the lives, livelihoods and liberty of real people, then perhaps you should stop assuming you're right from the outset, and actually *think* about what you're saying.

"I'm confident that if a study were done in this way, it would inform public policy by demonstrating a need for global prophylaxis from an economic perspective, not a pay-as-we go (suck'n'see) approach."

Well that's what's in issue isn't it?

So all you're doing is telling us that you assume you're right when you can't establish any reason, and do not have the data, to establish that you are.

What I'm asking you to do, is prove it.

Go ahead please:
1. 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):
2. 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.
3. 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.

Poirot
My argument does not consist of calling my opponents frauds. It consists of asking questions that will prove me wrong and them right, observing that they consistently refuse to answer, and observing that they instead lard their replies with every kind of diversion as you have just done. Your dishonesty is my conclusion, not my premise: that jibe was just another dishonest misrepresentation on your part, that still leaves you having proved nothing relevant about CAGW.

JKJ,

".....that still leaves you having proved nothing relevant about CAGW."

Come off it.

If you (and others) were genuinely interested in the veracity of climate science - or had any real expertise on the subject or any understanding of the intricacies it would take to convince you...you wouldn't be aiming to discuss it on a site like OLO which mainly hosts laymen.

You come here to lard on your spiel because you know you're unlikely to come across a real scientist (and if one does occasionally deign to turn up here - he or she is chased away smartly by one or more of the hordes of abusive "skeptics" after having his/her information pilloried)

That's the way it works on non-science forums.

JKJ,

"Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour...."

Many, many books have been written on the impact of rising global surface temperature eg http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/6.abstract

The 2 degree level, which is dangerous enough is now inevitable, http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full . if you're short of time, a toilet read highlights but a few amerocentric matters of concern, http://www.businessinsider.com.au/terrible-effects-of-climate-change-2014-10

I advocate global action on emissions which you say is advocating killing people. Really? So inaction will result in saving lives, right? Sorry, but there is a tsunami the size of Everest of scientific opinion against you on that. Educate yourself before you concede the climatology to me.

The design of public policy always has winners and losers, but is for the greater good. Your insistence on a laissez-faire approach ensures immense future misery for all.

Luciferase

"The design of public policy always has winners and losers, but is for the greater good.
Your insistence on a laissez-faire approach ensures immense future misery for all."

Well that's the issue isn't it? That's what we're trying to determine one way or the other.

You're arguing that policy will, in short, produce a net benefit. And I'm arguing that there is no rational basis for that belief, and challenging you to demonstrate it.

If you can't, it means we're entitled to conclude that your belief system is irrational. And since you already knew this from encountering my same disproof in a prior thread, and being similarly totally incapable of proving your case or disproving mine, therefore we are entitled to conclude that you are being dishonest as well.

So stop trying to squirm out of, and answer the questions that prove either you or me wrong. Merely repeating your belief, as you have just done, proves my argument and fails to demonstrate yours.

Go ahead please:

1. 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):

2. 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.

3. 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.

Poirot
Try to make a post relevant to the topic?

Poirot has presented her addle-brained perception of my comment on fraud –backers.” invariably comprises of accusing fellow posters of "dishonesty and fraud".That's about the size of it from Leo....”
Science shows that the human effect on climate is trivial and not measurable. A representation that global warming is human caused has no basis in science, so is a fraudulent representation. Poirot has put up no rational basis to oppose this, but attempts to ridicule my soundly based assertion.
If she, or lucerfase have any basis to refute this they should refer us to the science which demonstrates a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Their failure to raise any opposition on a rational basis, makes them fraud supporters.
A convenient summary of the current science:
“Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 285 parts per million 250 years ago to about 380 ppm today. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas -- it holds heat in the atmosphere -- so if humans are generating more, it should have a warming effect.
But probably not much of one. Greenhouse gases comprise less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere; carbon dioxide is less than 4 percent of greenhouse gases; 96 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by Mother Nature.
Compared to variations in solar radiation and other natural forces, the effect of greenhouse gases on climate is trivial.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275