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.