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.