The idea that adverse weather events are caused by man's moral fault is the oldest superstition in the world.

Lisa, you obviously aren’t aware of the fact that we have proved over and over and over again that climate policy cannot claim any rational basis whatsoever, even in its own terms: here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0
here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16726
here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16753&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16757&page=0

It’s no use pretending it all hasn’t happened. You need to deal with the issues.

We have established that your belief in climate policy is irrational because of the failure of the warmists to answer any of these questions, on which their entire argument depends:

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:
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.

All you’re doing is the standard warmist tactic of assuming it’s true in the first place, assuming someone somewhere must have proved it, and beginning the discussion on that basis. The next step is only, when challenged to show valid reason, either going silent, or instantly descending into a barrage of ad hominem, and a repetition of your appeal to authority and circular reasoning.

The point is, you can't assume that resources are scarce in the absence of governmental action, but all of a sudden they're not scarce any more and action has no risks or costs once government decides how to use them. It's irrational.

Thanks JKJ for demonstrating your mindless irrelevance to most discussions on climate change by yet again copy/pasting a tired argument irrelevant to the article.

I can't see how you can take such an issue with something that most climate 'skeptics' are advocating anyway. Namely, that adaptation is a far better course of action (because we can't stop climate change, as it isn't being done by us), than any sort of mitigation effort.

The topic of the article is highlighting what specifically has to be done to 'adapt' to climate change and what that really means. This has to be done regardless of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not.

Farmers and crop yields are some of our most vulnerable resources that must take climate variability into consideration. And this is being done. However, the cautionary warning is that our current farming technology can only do so much to adapt. There are limits to adaptation.

All
Notice how Bugsys' reply consists of nothing but ad hom, circularity, and appeal to absent authority, just as I predicted?

Bugsy
"Thanks JKJ for demonstrating your mindless"

Ad hominem.

"irrelevance"

Assumes what is in issue.

"to most discussions on climate change by yet again copy/pasting a tired argument irrelevant to the article"

The article assumes the justification of climate policy; my critique is that climate policy has no rational basis. Therefore it is not irrelevant.

If my argument is tired then why don't you disprove it by answering my questions?

"I can't see how you can take such an issue with something that most climate 'skeptics' are advocating anyway."

Ad hominem; assuming what is in issue; appeal to absent authority.

"Namely, that adaptation is a far better course of action (because we can't stop climate change, as it isn't being done by us), than any sort of mitigation effort. The topic of the article is highlighting what specifically has to be done to 'adapt' to climate change and what that really means. This has to be done regardless of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. Farmers and crop yields are some of our most vulnerable resources that must take climate variability into consideration. And this is being done. However, the cautionary warning is that our current farming technology can only do so much to adapt. There are limits to adaptation."

You haven't understood the issues. Read my questions. Then answer them. You are only proving my point, not yours.

Why bother replying if you don't care that what you are saying is logically senseless?

Actually JKJ, I think you have demonstrated my point quite well.

Those 'questions' of yours have been copy pasted dozens of times on this site. They are nonsense, of course. So far, I don't think I have seen anyone bother to answer them. I won't either.

You seem to take this as a sign of 'victory', which is why you persist in reposting them over and over again.

I don't.

Good luck in your ecology career.

JKJ is using the standard denier tactic of asking nonsensical questions with no bearing on the issue at hand to try and confuse and distract people.

Ill answer your question one JKJ
I would accept peer reviewed proof, from bonafide climate scientists, that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere DOES NOT absorb long wave radiation emitted from the earth. The fact that that would mean an icy, lifeless planet makes it sort of improbable.

As for the rest of your questions they are, deliberately, impossible for one person to answer which is why we have scientific organisations like the UN and the IPCC.
And they say people like you JKJ are TOTALLY and UTTERLY wrong.

I know who I trust.

Oh and on topic. Good on these farmers for being able to learn and adapt. Their use of technology, science and improved forecasting is the best way to increase our sustainability. A million miles from the high energy input, monoculture, factory farming that we in the west practice.

mikk

You have not understood the issues. The question is not mitigation per se. Any question of climate policy presupposes the rationality of it as a means to achieving its own stated ends.

You have established that your belief is unfalsifiable without reliance on logical fallacy; PLUS what it would establish is necessary but sufficient BINGO two logical fallacies in one insufficient reply. Go back to square one.

Go back and read the questions. Then answer them.

If you can't - and let's face it, you can't - then the intellectually honest answer is "I, mikk, admit that my belief in climate policy has no rational basis."

Oh and on topic: "denier" assumes you have already established what is in issue. You haven't, remember? All you've done is enter assuming its true, and when challenged, descended instantly into ad hom, appeal to authority, and circularity. You are only proving that your belief is a religious superstition; the opposite of science.

NEXT!

Even with the continual doctoring of the old data, & South America has come in for it's share recently, our scam organisers can't manufacture any increase in global warming in 18 years.

This agrees totally with the satellite record. No Warming.

If you are going to try to pontificate in these things, do try to keep up with the facts love.

The author shows her science illiteracy.

Does she not know that all crops green (no reference to the loony Greens intended) benefit from increasing CO2 levels?

No warming, = no ice melts, = no loss of summer ice, = no northwest passage, = no melting tundra = no new melt water lakes = no escaping melting methane; and in millions of tons P.A!

And yes, as our water resources dry up, for whatever reason, we can do things better; and just to obtain a better return, if for no other reason.

Take oil rich algae as a farming proposition?

Under optimized conditions they only need 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation, i.e., Murray/Darling basin or Murrumbidgee rice farming?

Under optimized conditions they can double their bodyweight every 24 hours.
Name just one other crop that can do that; and for just a fraction of the water?

Some types are up to 60% oil! And produce virtually ready to use diesel of Jet fuel.

Extracting it is child's play, where some of the filtered material (non seed bank) is sun dried then crushed to get virtually ready to use fuel; that could be retailed onsite for as much as $1.30 a litre?

And if your very low cost operation utilizing effluent, produced a thousand barrels a day? At a $1.30 a litre retail, that would be somewhere north of $300,0000.00 gross a day! Or a hundred mill plus per!

And on land just not suitable for any other purpose! And no better use of remaining save the Murray fund!

After that, we could make sure all our irrigation water was delivered underground via tapes and from properly sealed/covered storage dams; thereby doubling and doubling again, the crops that could be grown with the same water! And massively improve that outcome and earlier crops, by utilizing ground covering plastic, which in two for the price of one, further preserve the soil moisture, and inhibit problematic weeds

And just to maintain acceptable returns in the face of exponentially increasing adversity.

Think, solar thermal activity peaked during the mid seventies, (NASA) and has been in decline ever since!

Even so, probable causes don't matter anywhere near as much Has, as viable solutions!
Rhrosty.

As usual JKJ you are speaking utter nonsense. No matter how much pseudo philosophical jargon you throw at us it does not make you anything but a minority denier.

What logical fallacy? If co2 was shown to not absorb long wave radiation it would completely disprove any climate warming.
More utter rubbish and not any kind of argument at all. Just im right and no one else can see it. Rather foolish stance I think.

"PLUS what it would establish is necessary but sufficient"
What are you on about?

I cant answer nonsense questions. No one can. That is your point I suspect.
And you, fallaciously, use peoples non ability to answer as affirmation of your denier stance.

What is not rational is to live and prosper due to vast and overwhelming SCIENCE backed technology, medicine, infrastructure, transport etc etc while denying one small part of SCIENCE that happens to not correspond to your blinkered view of reality or your vested interests. The intellectually honest answer JKJ is that the science is settled and only the blind and the dishonest refuse to acknowledge that.

You are a denier JKJ and stating it assumes nothing other than the evidence I have in front of me in the form of your somewhat obtuse writings.

You are not in any position to talk to me about SCIENCE since you have rejected(denied)the vast collection of SCIENCE that has been done on this issue and it seems no amount of proof would be enough for you. Science is not a part of your beliefs so dont go trying to invoke it to berate others. That is hypocrisy.

Can someone get me up to date here The IPCC admitted no warming but the ABC say every year is hotter than the one before. The AGW crowd said all the heat had been blown to the bottom of the ocean?
I am truly confused as I believe that Melbourne certainly has been cooler the last few years, in fact the coolest January for over 50 years but the ABC say we are getting hotter.
What about everyone pays their own way. Nothing from me as I do not give a proverbial and Flannery et al can use their own resources and the ABC can take a hit on all executive salaries to account for their campagne, what about 50% cut on all salaries over 100k?

It is very interesting that deniers of climate change know what people in far off countries are experiencing. The logic is climate change is not happening; and so, what rice farmers in Colombia are experiencing must be wrong.
JKJ states through using 4 onlineopinion articles that climate change is not happening; the four references being the proof.

In the last decade there have been 4 droughts in the Amazon Basin. Normally drought there is a hundred year event.
As an adolescent occasionally I read Field and Stream magazines;an article about the Beaverkill River (US) by a fellow with the surname Theodore (from memory) wrote about the impact on his beloved river through deforestation. That was 50 plus years ago when only a few scientists were discussing climate change and it was not a topic of general discussion. The article was about how flow rates had significantly altered with flash flooding and significant lowered water flows at other times. The article was not a comment about climate change but described the relationship between deforestation and its impact on the water cycle.

Regardless of what deniers might say, we now know that deforestation does have an impact on climate change; temperature may or may not be an added feature.

The other matter that deniers have no answers for is during summer lakes form on the Greenland ice sheet and are drained by rivers which flow into moulins. A fairly recent phenomena.
I learnt as a youngster that temperature is a factor in the melting of ice; perhaps deniers have another explanation?

Deniers; may, or may not be aware of the doomsday clock; it has recently been moved to three minutes to twelve by eminent scientists.

Ant
No-one has ever denied that the climate changes, so the rest of your post is irrelevant and invalid.

You are only displaying your desperation or ignorance. Do try to understand what the article and debate are about.

Mikk
You obviously have not understood the basic concepts of science, or what is in issue in the climate debate.

Science does not mean open-ended blind faith in the authority of political vested interests, backed up with personal abuse of anyone who dares to question it, which is all you’re doing. Shouting “SCIENCE” doesn’t put you in any better position.

Your idea that the fact your beliefs might be wrong is “irrelevant”, or that questioning whether your beliefs are wrong is “mindless”, only shows that what you are doing is just circular repetition of articles of faith dispensed by orthodox authority. What you’re doing is religion, not science.

The IPCC is NOT a scientific body, it is a political body. It has never attempted to determine WHETHER we face catastrophic global warming that policy can improve. It has only ever had the job of propagating the view THAT we do and advocating policy action. The fact that you have mistaken this as “SCIENCE” only further proves that you have misunderstood what science is and what it does.

The physical question whether CO2 absorbs long wave radiation is not the issue, which is, whether we face catastrophic man-made global warming THAT POLICY CAN IMPROVE. The question is not whether we can reduce the adverse effects of man-made climate change. We could do that by stopping all productive activity. The question is whether a mitigation measure is worth it, and whether a coerced response is justified. That’s what you can’t prove by any rational criterion. And that’s why you can’t answer my questions.

The fact that you find it “impossible” – your words – to answer my questions which COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISPROVE your ENTIRE argument in support of climate policy, means that I have proved irrational your beliefs in climate policy, and you have admitted that you can’t prove they are rational.

(cont.)

Which means we have just established that there is no rational justification for any climate policy.

The fact that you would like something that is not true, to be true, is, is just mindless irrelevance – your words - on your part.

“Denier” is not a scientific term. It is a personal attack that assumes that you have proved what is in issue and I’m denying it. But as we have just seen, you haven’t proved it, and you yourself admit it “impossible” for you to prove it.

Do try to stop making such a complete fool of yourself.

All
Notice how the warmists are reduced to the non-scientific, non-rational responses I predicted before they tried them:
1. Lisa just went silent, incapable of defending her assumptions in favour of any climate policy;
2. Mikk flies into a passion of personal insult, openly defends his methodology of blind unquestioning faith in authority, misrepresents the issue as a merely physical/chemical one; and admits that he is totally incapable of defending the warmist claims in favour of climate policy;
3. Ant thinks he’s clever by misrepresenting the argument AS IF he’s talking to people so dumb that they deny the climate changes; whereas in reality, it is Ant who is so dumb he *doesn’t understand* that the issue is whether climate policy can be justified, even in its own terms.

That’s what they can never prove, because it happens to be false.

Note that this total demolition of all warmist argument for climate policy in no way relies on contesting whether or not there is in fact catastrophic man-made global warming. Got that?

And note, in advance, that any warmist reply will not answer the questions but just continues the tactic of circular insistence on the authority of orthodox beliefs, personal abuse, and misrepresentation.

Ho hum. Look at the company you’re keeping, Lisa. Do you call that science?

Irrational credulity, yes. Devious parasitism, maybe. Science, no.

"And note, in advance, that any warmist reply will not answer the questions but just continues the tactic of circular insistence on the authority of orthodox beliefs, personal abuse, and misrepresentation."

No JKJ that is what you do.

"Note that this total demolition of all warmist argument for climate policy in no way relies on contesting whether or not there is in fact catastrophic man-made global warming. Got that?"

So after all your waffle your problem is not global warming but the policies mooted to deal with it?

Why dont you write like a normal person? Its all conceited, long winded, psuedo libertarian babble designed to put people off.

So from this I presume you think that anthropogenic climate change will not cause any problems? Either now or in the future. Otherwise why would you be so head up about plans to deal with it?
Do you think we should just chance our luck with the predicted sea level rise, droughts, bushfires, extreme weather and disastrous heatwaves?
In what way is it rational to refuse to take even the smallest steps that would act as an insurance policy for future generations? Dont you care about your grandchildren?

JKJ, there are still deniers who are arguing that climate is not changing.
It is known that deforestation has an impact on climate; as stated its something I began to learn about as a teenager 50 plus years ago through reading Field and Stream magazine. The topic I was reading about was fly fishing where Theodore Gordon wrote about his observations about deforestation.

There are any number of references about deforestation and its impact on climate; just a few examples, I didn't include any references directed at children.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/the-effect-of-deforestation-on-the-climate-and-environment.aspx

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00208988#page-1

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com.au/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

JKJ, it is quite remarkable that you are disputing basic science that has been known about for many decades.
JKJ, please provide evidence that deforestation has no impact on water tables, agriculture or climate change.

Ant
“JKJ, it is quite remarkable that you are disputing basic science that has been known about for many decades.”

What scientific proposition am I disputing?

Mikk
Is your problem with global warming or the policies mooted to deal with it?

JKJ, if you do not know what I mean why do you bother to try and suggest you know about science.

The other factor is you have not answered the question I asked:

"JKJ, please provide evidence that deforestation has no impact on water tables, agriculture or climate change."

You cannot answer so chose to ignore it, the usual deal we get from climate change deniers.

You might get some ideas from here:

http://eschooltoday.com/forests/problems-of-deforestation.html

The article conflates a situation in some random part of the world with AGW in the first few paragraphs which stopped me reading it any further. I will cheerfully bet that it has been done without any support other than the authors belief in AGW.
To be clear, AGW is a real problem but until the spruikers and snake oil salesman are driven out of the game then it is not unreasonable to have doubts to the veracity of the science.
Yes the 2014 warming was less than the statistical error, yes the temperature has been more or less minor in its growth, that alone is not sufficient reason to throw the theory out. Like all science when the empirical evidence is not what you expected you adjust the theory to match the empirical evidence, if you have some variations they are noted. Newtons theory had exactly this problem for hundreds of years.

Its the flim flam flanneries of this world that damage the AGW adherents arguments so much. Erlich like pronouncements of doom proven inaccurate time and time again. That is where we will lose the argument, it gets conflated with this rubbish and therefore ignored by the wider public.

ant
So you're saying I'm a "denier", but when I ask you what I'm denying, you don't know and can't say.

“"JKJ, please provide evidence that deforestation has no impact on water tables, agriculture or climate change."

1. Did I ever say it doesn’t? Answer this question.
2. You are asking me to prove a negative.

ant, mikk
Assuming, very much in your favour, that you're not being deliberately dishonest, you have failed to understand the issue.

The question is how you know whether a particular climate policy is worth it, or not, in terms of the human ends you are trying to achieve?

So ... prove it.

Stop using your *mid-brain* to *emote* and squark orthodox groupthink at me, and actually use your *fore-brain* to *think* for a change.

Prove it and show your workings or admit you can’t.

All
Note how both ant and mikk's responses:
- assume CAGW is true in the first place
- when challenged, are incapable of defending the warmist view without *relying on* a personal argument against me every time
- keep appealing to absent authority even when they know it’s a logical fallacy
- keep mistakenly assuming that “science” supplies value judgments, while accusing me of not understanding science
- fail to join issue ever time.

Let's just get one thing straight. No-one is so dumb that they think the problem is that skeptics of climate policy deny that the climate exists or that the climate changes. That is just straight-out deliberate and stupid dishonesty on the part of warmists; and that is the intellectual level at which their entire discourse is carried on, as we are seeing yet again in this thread.

Got that proof there yet fellahs? Make sure you show how you took into account the countervailing human values both present and future, in a lowest common denominator, and show your workings, you being such big scientists and all.

They have nothing, and never have had. The whole thing is just a politically-driven hoo-haa and pretence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent State that has no basis in reality.

JKJ, so you have admitted that deforestation is a component of anthropogenic climate change, thank you.
The ice sheets in Greenland are melting from the top, surface temperature being the explanation.

You will of course notice how many times the 'skeptics' comments mention 'famrers' or 'agriculture' in relation to the article.

That is, none. Zero. Zip.

However all you need to do is mention 'climate', whether AGW or not, and they fly into a frenzy of the same old comments.

Yes, we get it. You don't believe in global warming. You add nothing new to the conversation.

That is why this site is in major decline. The same comments from the same people around and around again.

How dull.

All
Notice how the warmists have nothing but:
- refusing to answer the question that would prove them right and all skeptics wrong
- personalising the argument to me every single time without exception
- trying to divert the discussion into what is necessary but not sufficient
- pretending that the issue is whether the climate changes
- pretending that the issue is what temperature changes there have been
- pretending that they speak from superior wisdom and goodness on behalf of all people in all times
- pretending that government has no interest in the knowledge in question
- pretending that their policies have no cost.

Completely bogus.

Don’t think this is only in this thread, or only on OLO. The entire warmist technique, to the highest levels everywhere, consists of NOTHING BUT this kind of flim-flam, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise by answering the question.

Warmists
Prove how you know that any given climate policy achieves the human ends it is intended to, as defined by the warmists, in units of a lowest common denominator equally applied to the present and future humans it refers to. Show your workings. No evasion. Just answer the question or admit you can’t.

Bugsy
Given that I have proved climate policy has no rational basis, and given that NO-ONE ANYWHERE EVER can demonstrate that it does have a rational basis, therefore ALL climate policy is false, including that relating to farms and agriculture.

You see, with *REAL* science, scientists don't just stare a total disproof in the face, and then launch a snivelling personal attack on the person who pointed it out, and evade answering the question that proves them wrong.

But that's all you're doing.

Ant
You say I’m a “denier”, but when I ask you what I’m denying, you can’t say.

“The ice sheets in Greenland are melting from the top, surface temperature being the explanation.”

So what?

Answer my questions or admit you are wrong.

JKJ, you use lots of verbiage but do not provide any real data to show where climate scientists are wrong.
You say "so what" in relation to lakes and rivers forming and flowing into moulins on the Greenland ice sheet, its only a recent phenomena.
Do I really have to say that ice thaws through being warmed. The Greenland ice sheet is very deep, so its not a matter of warmth creeping up from below. Though the moulins directing water under the surface is another matter.

You might like to google "drunken trees" something I came across yesterday when reading about the problems expressed about the Iditarod dog sled race in Alaska. There is debate about needing to move the start line for 2015, they had the same debate last year. Last year the race was over thin ice and snow and over gravel. The race has been held for 42 years the start line has had to be moved in 2003 the first time ever. Guess what JKJ they have been recording high temperatures in Alaska this winter till so far.

Surface temperature is doing much damage; scientists inform us how those higher temperatures are created. Deniers have not been able to explain away those higher temperatures. Nature itself is showing that temperatures have been increasing.

JKJ you say we are wrong, if that is the case you must have a strong case, please provide it.
Some comments about deforestation from you would be of interest; as would comments about "drunken trees." Just in case you take a very literal meaning to everything, trees don't really get drunk.

ant
You have not understood what the discussion is about, and you have got the onus of proof back-the-front.

The issue is not temperatures or deforestation per se, it's what to do about it. It's about climate policy. If this were not so, then we could both agree that all climate policy should be abolished whatever the temperatures changes are or may be.

But you don't agree with that, right? You're saying climate policies are justified and necessary. And I'm saying you are incapable of establishing any rational or scientific justification of climate policies, and that the belief in climate policies is an irrational belief system just like any other superstition.

So you're the one saying that climate policies are justified. I can't be asked to disprove what I don't assert. You have to prove what you posit. That means you have the onus of proving that any climate policies you support, can be rationally justified.

To make it easy for you to understand, let's suppose that I concede every point about temperatures or deforestation that you would like to make. Okay? Got that?

So now prove how you know that any given climate policy achieves the human ends it is intended to, as defined by the warmists, in units of a lowest common denominator equally applied to the present and future humans it refers to. Show your workings.

No talking down to me as if I don't understand that temperature exists or the climate changes, no assuming I must agree with you as a pre-condition of entering into the argument, no reversing the onus of proof, no posting links about deforestation as if that self-evidently proves your point, no pretensions to moral superiority, no back-tracking, side-winding, diversions, personal argument, straw men, facile dishonesty and the rest of the rubbish that comprises your posts.

Just answer the question or admit you can't.

From your first post JKJ, and first sentence ... "The idea that adverse weather events are caused by man's moral fault is the oldest superstition in the world."

The first sentence undermines your last post.

The initial use of fossil fuels has no bearing on morality; now that we know of the impacts of fossil fuel it becomes a moral question if no attempt is made to mitigate against it.

If we are to discuss science; then, saying this is not right, or that is not right, is meaningless without data.
I raised the issue of deforestation as it has an impact on agriculture as well as climate.
Your problem is you are not able to answer the questions I have asked and so try to slide away. Those questions impact on the first sentence you stated at No1.

Bugsy, at 14/02/2015 at 8.39 am hit the bullseye with his comment.

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

ant

Unless you can show that a climate policy is justified, there is nothing for me to slide away from.

"Your problem is you are not able to answer the questions I have asked and so try to slide away."

I have - very much in your favour - removed the need for you to prove anything about data from natural science. I repeat, let's suppose that I concede any point about the natural science that you would like to make. What could be fairer than that? If you don't understand why not, say so, and I'll explain.

"Those questions impact on the first sentence you stated at No1."

Indeed they do? What needs to be proved is, by what rational criterion do you distinguish your beliefs in climate policy, from an irrational belief system? You're the one arguing that the scientific explanation is obvious. So ... ? It should be easy for you to prove.

All you have to do now is show how any given climate policy that you support, can be rationally proved to do what you claim it does and must do, in terms of the human ends you say it is necessary for; by a lowest common denominator taking present and future interests into account.

Go ahead.

All you've just done is try to reverse the onus of proof, by ASSUMING that positive data prove your case for you. Drag and drop that assumption into the trash can. If you don't understand why, please say so, and I'll explain.

Now. Prove how you know that any given climate policy achieves the human ends it is intended to, as defined by the warmists, in units of a lowest common denominator equally applied to the present and future humans it refers to. Show your workings. If you don't understand what I'm asking you to prove, say so, and I'll explain.

JKJ, your original premise is wrong in suggesting that climate change is a "superstition". The view that climate change has a man made component has been derived from scientists. Some aspects in relation to man created climate change have been known for almost two centuries through physics and chemistry.
You are not able to argue against the examples I have given that show climate change is happening; that is, nature is displaying temperatures trending up.
Even the Tea Party in the US earlier this year has acknowledged climate change is happening, though will not accept there is a significant man made component.

You need to be able to uphold your original premise about climate science being a "superstition" before I will communicate further.

"JKJ your original premise is wrong in suggesting that climate change is a "superstition".

I never suggested that it is. Go back and read what I said.

Ant, all anyone has to do is read the first line of this thread to see that you're lying through your teeth. Do you think it's not obvious what a clown you're making of yourself?

Then answer my questions:
1. prove how you know that any given climate policy achieves the human ends it is intended to, as defined by the warmists, in units of a lowest common denominator equally applied to the present and future humans it refers to. Show your workings. If you don't understand what I'm asking you to prove, say so, and I'll explain.
2. admit that you were wrong in your transparently dishonest misrepresentations that I deny that the climate changes, or claimed climate change is a superstition; and specify any other scientific proposition that I deny, you liar.

All
Notice how the warmists are so used to their group-think echo-chamber, that when they venture outside into the real world and anyone actually asks them to prove what they're claiming, they go into this cognitive dissonance?

Remember that, on examination, ant's low, dull, squirming, dishonesty is what the ENTIRE DEFENCE of the global warming belief system comes down to. This is all they've got.

Of course if it were real science, they would prove what they're claiming, in units of a lowest common denominator, without dishonesty, circularity and evasion, wouldn't they

Dear JKJ,

Are you still beating your 'logical fallacy' drum? Sheesh mate, I remember discussing this with you a couple of years back and I'm afraid your understanding of logical fallacies was pretty shallow then as they seem to be now. This is a great shame because I spent a great deal of time going over them with you in order that you might employ them more judiciously. That has patently not been effective.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14784#255922

Would a remedial class be of assistance?

Just for starters for an ad hominem to be a logical fallacy, which you seem to be contending, it can not be just an insult, it must be an argument that a poster's argument is incorrect or should be dismissed basically because of an identifiable character flaw of that individual.

I do not have as much free time as when we last explored the issues of logical fallacies and your predilection for wantonly employing them yourself while berating others for doing so, but I feel it would be a charitable thing to do.

JKJ, when discussing science this might help you.

http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/projects/thescientificmethod.html

Once you have that under your belt you might like to provide some discussion in relation to the paper written by scientists to provide an understanding of climate science for non scientists.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1660938/the-australian-academy-of-science.pdf

Published by the Australian Academy of Science
ISBN 978 0 85847 413 0

Ho hum, more vacuous ad hominem and circularity - and nothing else - from the warmists.

Steeleredux
a) makes no attempt to join issue or answer the question that would prove the warmists right and me wrong
b) ridicules the very idea of logical thought as an objection to the warmists' belief system
c) suggests that my argument is logically fallacious without specifying why
d) suggests that I misunderstand ad hom as being mere personal insult, whereas I correctly call the warmists for their arguments that *rely on* supposed personal characteristics of mine
e) the substantive content of steeleredux's last post is only suggesting I don't understand what I'm talking about - i.e. pure ad hominem and nothing but ad hom.

Ant does the same. He dodges answering what would settle the issue, and merely suggests that the problem is my alleged personal characteristic of not understanding “the science” without specifying why, or identifying the science I allegedly deny. His necessary implication is that the science settles the question of what any given policy should be, which is precisely what he has just failed to answer five times when asked.

Lisa, ant, mikk, Bugsy, Steelredux
Since you evidently don't know or don't care what an intellectually honest discussion would look like, it would look like this:

JKJ:
"prove how you know that any given climate policy achieves the human ends it is intended to, as defined by the warmists, in units of a lowest common denominator equally applied to the present and future humans it refers to. Show your workings."

Lisa, ant, mikk, Bugsy, Steelredux, and ALL WARMISTSIN THE WORLD (with one voice)
“I can’t.”

JKJ:
“Because?”

Warmists:
“I haven’t got the data set necessary. No-one has.”

JKJ:
“And you can never get it, can you?”

Warmists:
“No.”

JKJ:
“So it’s a false pretence of knowledge, isn’t it?”

Warmists:
“Yes.”

JKJ:
“You admit you have no rational criterion for judging whether any given climate policy would make matters worse or better, in your own terms?”

Warmists:
“Yes.”

(cont.)

JKJ:
“So why didn’t you answer my question?”

Warmists:
“Embarrassment at being so easily and so unanswerably proved categorically wrong on such a basic and obvious point of what I was talking about.”

JKJ:
“So you thought you’d try to cover up with repeated shifts and evasions and personal argument?”

Warmists:
“Yes.”

JKJ:
“Pretty low, wasn’t it, especially in the name of science??

Warmists:
“Yes.”

JKJ:
“So you are a …?”

Warmists:
“Complete berk.”

JKJ:
“But it’s worse than that, isn’t it? Because you’re supporting the abuse of power, aren’t you?”

Warmists:
“Yes. My pretence of moral superiority must be truly nauseating. I’m sorry. I am especially sorry for those in the world who have suffered, are suffering, and will suffer hardship or privation as a result of my positive commitment to haughty insulting active intellectual evasion and dishonesty, and to active waste of enormous resources that could better serve the human ends I claim to care about. Now that you have pointed it out, I see the coincidence between the fact my arguments are circular, and defended only by appeal to authority and personal abuse, and the fact that those beliefs are in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God-State. I have thoughtlessly substituted the State for the church, O what a complete berk I have been, thank you for pointing it out."

Obviously frustrated that the 'conversation' he desperately wants is not happening, JKJ is reduced to talking to himself.

JKJ, as a rule, I don't generally comment about 'climate policy', I leave that to others who know more about formulating policy.

I generally comment about the science, as people have to convinced that climate change is actually happening before they will meaningfully discuss any sort of policy to deal with it, whether it be either adaptation or mitigation (these are two different things BTW).

The agricultural adaptation that is being tackled in the article doesn't require knowledge of human costs into the future, or whether climate change is caused by humans. You say you don't deny that the climate changes, you have never said whether you believe it is changing right now.

The farmers mentioned in the article are changing with it. That does not require the 'dataset' that you mention. No working need to be shown. They have to adapt or they disappear, simple as that. It is only an example, it does not require any input from us.

JKJ, you have not made any comment about the Australian Academy of Science, real science comment which is anathema to your point of view.

“Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. But climate change has caused much of that ground to melt at an unprecedented rate. The ground buckles and sinks, causing trees to list at extreme angles.”

From:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/04/140417-drunken-trees-melting-permafrost-global-warming-science/

To take a science point of view to the concept of "drunken trees"; questions of how, why, where should be asked. Does frozen ground melting show an influence of warmth? What other explanation might there be? Would extra warmth make the process move faster? is the warmth coming up from under the permafrost? Are there any other factors that might explain why the soil is buckling? How do we know that the process is happening at an unprecedented rate?
They might be a few of the questions asked.
Preceding those questions would be doing as much research as possible...eg paleoclimatology.

The problem is that deniers who try to debunk anthropogenic climate change do not display that kind of analysis. You may, or may not go into some kind of rant, which ignores science.

I did find the report on a recent study on knowledge of the theory of global warming very interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.

It found that those who accept the theory have very little knowledge of it, or how it is supposed to work. They simply accept authority as handed down to them in the majority, or try to use it, without understanding it, for their own purpose.

Those on the other hand, who have made some effort to study the theory almost to a person, reject it as false, unless they are profiting from it's use, or using it to further some personal objective.

In the study the rejecters could answer over twice as many questions on how the theory was supposed to work.

Obviously most of the warmists on here are in the first category. Not surprisingly their arguments are verbal, not scientific.

Hasbeen, you make lots of statements without providing any data.
I find it quite astounding that you write off the "recent study". I suppose you mean the study from the Australian Academy of Science.

You wrote "I did find the report on a recent study on knowledge of the theory of global warming very interesting."

Your comment is meaningless, your comment about the Australian Academy of Science is quite disparaging, if that is the science paper you referred too. If you have any better information produce it. All that deniers have been doing is say that's wrong without providing a field of scientific proof in showing that man made climate change is wrong. Sometimes Watts is used as a reference; he is not a scientist, and I have just come across another reference showing how wrong he is.

You might like to give a scientific explanation in relation to "drunken trees." Scientists have identified it as part of climate change; but, Hasbeen, you will not be able to come up with a plausible explanation.
Elsewhere today, somebody was commenting that the forecast temperature for Fairbanks, Alaska, is 12C above average for this week. Permafrost begins to melt at 1.5C. In other words, it gets a bit difficult to argue against surface temperatures in relation to "drunken trees".

The question then arises why have average surface temperatures been rising in the Arctic over the last decades.
Also,what has caused those surface temperatures to rise, previous answers by deniers have been shown to be wrong by scientists. Its not something you can answer in a convincing way.
Do you know better than Psychiatrist, Orthopaedic Surgeons, Neurosurgeons, Ophthalmologists, Biologists, Marine Scientists, Atmospheric Scientists, or Glaciologists etc; if not, what gives you the presumptiveness to suggest you know better than climate scientists.