Poirot
With science, when the data don't support the theory, you keep the data and throw out the theory. With religion, when the data don't support the theory, you keep the theory and throw out the data.

What you've got is religion.

Luciferase
Please answer the questions.

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.

JKJ,

When you've got the generic spiel and don't have the knowledge or expertise, you throw out the knowledge and expertise and keep the generic spiel.

Then you have JKJ

Sorry about that rushed post, JKJ.

Obviously if you don't have the knowledge or expertise to begin with - then you can't throw it out.

But you get my drift.

: )

Poirot

The Pope is an expert on the Virgin Birth. If the facts don't fit the theory, and you keep harping on the theory, you've got religion, not science, and it doesn't matter who's doing it, what they call themselves, and what kind of hat they're wearing.

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.

JKJ. I cannot see the point in asking what information would induce fraud-backers to relinquish their support of the AGW fraud. They can put forward no scientific basis, for their position, so there is nothing to be countered.
You would have to convince them that it is preferable to be honest rather than dishonest. Poirot is a lefty, so forget that. Luciferase has failed to refer us to any science to support AGW, so obviously is dishonest in his backing of the fraud. He has put forward no alternate basis; he simply ignores the science, and adopts his stance irrationally.

Ho Hum...Leo's at it again....

How to Prove Climate Change is a Fraud 101

Simply accuse everyone who argues against you of being dishonest!

(and if you can also paste them as being a "leftie" and "dishonest" it's doubly proven!)

Whackydoo!