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?