Appeal to absent authority and begging the question are not science, and that's all you've ever done.

If a bunch of theologians call their activity "science", that doesn't mean it's science, does it? It goes by your intellectual methodology, not by what name you call it you fools.

Your intellectual methodology is
a) before entering the discussion, repose open-ended unquestioning credulity in an ideology-manufacturing monopoly corporation
b) enter the discusson having assumed all issues in your own favour
c) meet all challenges by repeating your assumptions, appeal to absent authority, active evasion, and ad hominem.

All you need to understand the whole debate is to know that the people the warmists keep referring off to are sharing the same methodology. That' what ant and tony are calling "science".

But notice they refuse to answer 1. How they know what the planet's temperature should be, 2. How they know what the ecology woild be in either case, and 3. How they know what people's values shoild be?

It's nonense to call this jumble of arbitrary moralising "science".

They people are not just fools but liars.

Notice how, when challenged, the warmist tony's ultimate argument is pseudo-psychologising? It's a psychological, not a climatological explanation. Completely fake.

Tony and ant, everything you say about climate is disproved in websites and authorities you refer to.

Therefore we have established by argreement, using the warmists' own methodology, that no climate policy whatsoever is justified.

JKJ: wait for a cloudless day.
Look at the sky.
If it is blue, shake your head in defiance.
You might not understand why it is blue, so therefore it is not blue.

Oxygen / nitrogen in the atmosphere captures blue light from the sun, and tosses it around.

Carbon Dioxide captures infra red, and tosses it aound, preventing some of that infra red from exiting planet earth, causing warming.

So, to be honest to your convictions, sky is not, and never has been, blue.

tony
wait for a cloudless day.
Look at the sky.
If it is blue, shake your head in defiance.
You might not understand why it is blue, so therefore it is not blue.

Oxygen / nitrogen in the atmosphere captures blue light from the sun, and tosses it around.

Carbon Dioxide captures infra red, and tosses it aound, preventing some of that infra red from exiting planet earth, causing warming.

So, to be honest to your convictions, thou fragment, the sky is not, and never has been, blue.

Now it's like this. The issue is whether there is any justification of climate policy.

I have shown three reasons categorically refuting all warmists including you:
1. your reliance on appeal to absent authority is logically fallacious and therefore not scientific; responding to this by repeating your appeals to authority proves my argument not yours, fool;
2. you do not know the distribution and abundance of species in both cases, and therefore your ecological prognostications have no scientific basis; you are talking hot air;
3. you do not know the human evaluations in both cases, and therefore your economic assertions are irrational.

And you have been COMPLETELY UNABLE to answer these arguments, except by merely repeating your liturgy, and the kind of irrelevant drivel that you posted above.

Therefore we have established that there is no justification of climate policy.

The observation that you are now debating need for policy indicates you accept the scuence.
A small step forward.
Keep moving.

The observation that you have again assumed what is in issue when you have completely and repeatedly failed to prove it when challenged, indicates that you don't understand what science is; and are therefore not intellectually qualified to participate in the discussion.

I have shown why your claims about climate have no scientific basis, and without answering my argument, you just give me another serve of snivelling question-begging. Do you think your facile dishonest evasion is not obvious? *Real* science actually proves by evidence and reason, not just endless arse-licking of those in power and circular tail-chasing.

Just answer the question: do you or do you not understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on any logical fallacy including appeal to absent authority?

Do you understand that, or not?