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