Excuse me? If you support the climate alarmists who claim that temperatures on earth will rise and cause catastrophic consequences, then the onus is upon you to prove it. All you have is "computer modelling", where as Lord Monckton pointed out in his address to the ICCC, if you control the programming, you can program in what you want to get out.

The doublethink mindsets of trendy lefties is best displayed by your claim of character assassination which was done while you were doing it yourself to your opponents. As for your charge that I avoid questions, I have asked you twice to explain how you are going to sell rising temperatures caused by HIGW warming when the astronomers are now telling us that the earth may cool? And you dodged it twice.

Your claim that Flannery had never said that the dams would never fill again was an outright lie and you knew it. You knew it would be difficult to find Flannery's exact quote and you were surprised when I did it. Faced with your own personnel culpability with other climate alarmists, who also make assertions that they know are not true, you tried to wriggle out of it by claiming it is utterly wrong to use quotation marks to quote somebody unless they were quoted verbatum. You did have a point there. But it was all obfuscation, because you knew that my quote had not changed Flannery's meaning one whit.

Your tactics comply with the other climate alarmists. Make the most outrageous claims which you already know are not true, and then demand that your opponents do all the work to disprove them. Obfuscate, muddy the water, put the onus of proof on your opponents, label them "deniers" to give a connection to "holocaust deniers", slap on lawsuits to shut them up, hide the data, "homogenise the data", ignore the historically recorded instances of natural climatic variability, get your publically funded media to spread the propaganda, and when your predictions of impending doom turn out to be laughably wrong, avoid the publicity that you were previously craving

Wrong yet again, LEGO (do you ever get anything right?).

<<If you support the climate alarmists who claim that temperatures on earth will rise and cause catastrophic consequences, then the onus is upon you to prove it.>>

The burden of proof is the one making the claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) and so far you have not fulfilled your burden of proof. Every time you’ve attempted to (on the rare occasions that you do) you’ve failed.

While, philosophically, the theist is the one who bears the burden of proof, as soon an atheist claims, “God does not exist”, they’ve saddled themselves with a burden of proof.

I hate to compare atheists with denialists, but it brings me to another point. Unlike the theist, the scientists who claim that climate change is at least in part the result of human activity have already provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. Thus, if you are to still deny them, then the burden of proof legitimately switches to the denialist.

Either way, I have provided links to support my claims. That you ignore or do not understand them is your problem. We don’t just get to deny, deny, deny when the other party is providing evidence. That’s not the way the burden of proof works. If it were, then one could simply deny a claim indefinitely whether or not the other has provided sufficient evidence.

<<All you have is "computer modelling"...>>

No, scientists have known since the 1800s that while CO2 doesn’t prevent shortwave light that passing through our atmosphere, it traps the longer wave heat radiation that would be reflected back into space. This can even be demonstrated in a laboratory. In the 1930s, Guy Stewart Callendar showed that the radiation absorbed by CO2 was at different wavelengths to the radiation absorbed by water vapour. By the 1960s, we realised that a warmer world would soon be inevitable (http://davidmlawrence.com/Woods_Hole/References/Keeling_1970_CarbonDioxide_FossilFuel.pdf, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02001111, ).

None of this was dreamed up by the IPCC.

Climatologists can even measure exactly how much heat can be blocked from escaping our atmosphere. (http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/Bazzaz_AnnReviewEcologySystematics_1990.pdf)

I can keep going if you’d like?

Continued…

...Continued

<<The doublethink mindsets of trendy lefties is best displayed by your claim of character assassination which was done while you were doing it yourself to your opponents.>>

No, I was talking about the ad hominem fallacy, not character assassination. The difference is that you are relying on it to avoid having to engage with the arguments of climatologists (see my post above). To make things worse, unlike myself, you have not yet demonstrated your claims.

<<I have asked you twice to explain how you are going to sell rising temperatures caused by HIGW warming when the astronomers are now telling us that the earth may cool? And you dodged it twice.>>

No, I just ignored it for two reasons. Firstly, it’s not my job, but more importantly, you were simply committing the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy. I’m sorry I didn’t have the word allowance to point this out earlier.

<<Your claim that Flannery had never said that the dams would never fill again was an outright lie and you knew it.>>

No, I had demonstrated that he didn’t: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309589. You are yet to prove otherwise.

<<...you tried to wriggle out of it by claiming it is utterly wrong to use quotation marks to quote somebody unless they were quoted verbatum.>>

Nope, never claimed that and I’ve already addressed this lie here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309621, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309671.

<<...you knew that my quote had not changed Flannery's meaning one whit.>>

Yes, I knew that so well that I even demonstrated otherwise here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309589.

I love when we get to this point where I can just link back to my old responses. You’re so repetitive.

<<...slap on lawsuits to shut them up, hide the data, "homogenise the data"...>>

You are yet to demonstrate that these indicate fraud.

<<...ignore the historically recorded instances of natural climatic variability,>>

Show me one scientist, or one instance of myself, doing this.

Do you have any new material, LEGO?

Silly me, LEGO. Here even I was thinking I had ignored a dumb question of yours.

<<I have asked you twice to explain how you are going to sell rising temperatures … And you dodged it twice.>>

When I had actually addressed it all along. Twice, in fact. Here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309555 and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309569.

That was the Tu quoque fallacy you committed there too, by the way.

So that makes five fallacies from you and zero from me; and [too many to count] questions left unanswered from you and zero from me.

I didn’t think my answer to this was complete either…

<<The doublethink mindsets of trendy lefties is best displayed by your claim of character assassination which was done while you were doing it yourself to your opponents.>>

What I neglected to point out earlier, was that fact that (unlike yourself) I directly engage with the claims of denialists/yourself; to the point of even quoting virtually every claim of yours (within what the word limits will allow). To ignore practically every point I make (engaging them only when you deliberately and overtly misrepresent them) only to then repeat the same discredited claims, and then accuse me of lying, is the height of dishonesty.

By the way, character assassinations are, by definition, unjustified (http://tinyurl.com/psslfdv). Try finding just one unjustified claim from me about denialists.

Finally, going back to what I said in response to your claim that AGW relies on computer modelling, here are some articles that are even OLDER than the ones I linked to earlier:

'On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground' (1896): http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

'The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature' (1938): http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2014/MMEES/Papers/ENVIRONMENT/1EnvironmentalSystemsModeling/Callendar1938-TheArtificialProduction-of-CarbonDioxide.pdf

'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change' (1956): http://journals.co-action.net/index.php/tellusa/article/download/8969/10431

Hold up a second! Did the title of that last article say "climate change"?

Yes.

But didn't the secret brotherhood of academics only recently change "global warming" to "climate change” because there's allegedly no warming?

No.

It turns out that's just another steaming pile of cow dung from denialists. You guys are full of it.

I know what CO2 is, and I agree that if humans continue to release ever larger quantities of this gas into the atmosphere, it can contribute to global warming. I would agree that starting to think about using other means of producing energy is sensible.

But that is not the issue here.

The issue is, that neo Marxists have used the potential of CO2 pollution to frighten the public, by making totally exaggerated claims about impending catastrophe, into accepting the idea of a collectivised world economy where abject poverty is evenly spread, and everyone on planet Earth, especially the populations of the wealthy industrialised nations, see that there is no alternative to creating a subsistence farming economy where everybody communes with nature.

The extravagant claims by leading climate alarmists, that unless we make the most significant social and economic changes to our way of life right now, dams would never fill, hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes would increase both in number and intensity, the polar caps would soon melt, seas will soon rise and drown both islanders and partly submerge major cities, most Australian cities would need desalination plants, Perth would become the world's first "ghost city", and the earth would open up and the demons from hell would consume everybody. The last conference by the IPCC was touted to be "the Last Chance to Save the Earth." Don't think about it, do it now or we are all doomed.

To prevent global scale human catastrophe, it is imperative that every wealthy country needs to create new government departments to give gainful employment to leftist greenies. And wealthy countries who caused this mess with their CO2 pollution, must of course donate thousands of billions of dollars to compensate the innocent poor countries for the results of their culpability.

The problem for the neo Marxists is that they can not support their outrageous claim. Even the IPCC admits that "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled, non linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of climate states is not possible.