Warmists: "I just switch off my critical faculty, swallow anything that big government bureaucracies tell me, ignore any evidence or reason against it, and evade any question that I can’t answer without proving myself wrong.”
Skeptics: "Prove how you know what the temperature of the globe should be; how you took account of the distribution and abundance of species in either scenario; how you accounted for the benefits and detriments, including your discount for futurity if any; and show your workings."
Warmists: "Deniers! Lunatics! Bastards! Losers! Know-it-alls!"
Skeptics: “You are advocating mere blind faith, which is not science or scientific. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and that’s all you’ve got, and all you’ve ever had.”
Warmists: "I know, but it is unthinkable for me to give up my faith in total government control of everything, even though I know I cannot defend it."

What you guys have and display is religious fervour, not science.

ant and Aidan openly admit that their method is fallacious, and then still insist that all their premises and conclusions hold true! So what’s the point of talking about it?

And then we have MrOpinion giving us his Arts-degree mind-reading about things he knows nothing about, and arguing us that no-one is entitled to have an opinion on anything, but we should all just docilely and blindly obey government.

You warmists are a throw-back to the dark ages. Read what you're writing for gossake: you're arguing that reason has no place in the search for knowledge. It's just too arse-brained for words.

Answer my questions: what does it matter to your whether other people share your illogical opinions about the weather? How do you know what the temperature of the world should be? How did you work out the benefits and detriments? DON'T bore me with your stupid links. I'll just post them back and, according to your theory of knowledge, that settles the question.

If you're not interested in discussion, or you think that no discussion can possibly prove you wrong, then shut up and go away!

Dear Leo Lane,

That's nice to hear that you have an interest in Arts fields and read up on them during lunch breaks. However, all that really tells me is that you know how to read. Try proving that you actually know anything about philosophy, anthropology, etc. Unless one has a degree it would be a real battle to demonstrate it. That's why I took myself back to uni and spent extra years earning several degrees. It is through those useless Arts subjects (your words) that we can learn and understand what it is to be human.

But getting back to reality. Yes, I am one of those who believe that global warming is real. I believe that its greatest extent can be measured from the start of the Industrial Revolution about 250 years ago. I believe that the constant reference to climate change per se is a distraction from the real focus for understanding global warming as the great danger threatening life on Earth. I believe that it is now too late to arrest global warming and all that can now be done is to manage the effects of global warming e.g. things like climate change. I believe that global warming is unstoppable and will lead to a hot planet and will eradicate all life on Earth. The Earth will eventually go the way Venus went. I believe that people like Jardine K. Jardine behave like complete ratbags who would be doing all of us a favour by keeping their heads buried in the sand.

//And then we have MrOpinion giving us his Arts-degree mind-reading about things he knows nothing about, and arguing us that no-one is entitled to have an opinion on anything, but we should all just docilely and blindly obey government.//

What on earth does the government have to do with science? They don't carry out theoretical or experimental research, and the number of Federal parliamentarians with science degrees - even just the humble B.Sc, let alone higher qualifications - could be counted on the left hand of a very clumsy right-handed butcher.

If it's government policy and not research that determines the validity of a scientific hypothesis, why did we waste all that money building the LHC? We could have just got the government issue a statement confirming the existence of the Higgs boson and saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

Scientists do science; governments govern. I wouldn't trust governments to do science because they're not qualified, and I wouldn't trust scientists to govern because as soon as they got their hands on the purse strings they'd blow the budget on education and R&D and leave no money for other important areas.

...

...

Climatology is an applied science and not really my cup of tea, but I see no more reason to believe that climatologists en masse are perpetuating some sort of fraud or hoax than I do, say, particle physicists. If they say they've got the data from the LHC to support the existence of the Higg's boson, then I'm happy enough to believe them without checking the data myself - because believe me, that data will have been checked rigorously. There is nothing that scientists hate more than other scientists who cook the books (look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield when he falsified data: he was tarred and feathered). And also, why would they lie? What's the point? If anything, they would have more incentive to lie about not finding it because then they'd need to do more research, which means more research grants and maybe even a bigger, shinier toy than the LHC to play with.

There is no incentive for climate scientists to lie about global warming. The scientists who benefit from attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions are those involved in developing alternative energy sources, not climatologists. There's really nothing in it for the climatologists to be making this stuff up - they have to pay carbon taxes too you know. One can dispute their research methodologies and the conclusions they draw from their data - if one understands their field of science enough to do so - but the notion the climatologists are involved in some big con job is a ludicrous conspiracy theory in tin-foil hat territory.

Jardine stated:

"...ant and Aidan openly admit that their method is fallacious...."

What arrant nonsense, Jardine brings politics and sophistry to science topics.

He is unable to produce any completely up to date references to science.
This arrived in my inbox yesterday in relation to Arctic methane voiding. The article is about how during the colder months little was done in relation to measuring methane voiding, the news is not good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/21/bad-news-scientists-say-we-could-be-underestimating-arctic-methane-emissions/

The Arctic has quite an impact on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, it is not in a healthy state:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/common-thread-at-2015-agu-conference--the-big-melt

ExxonMobil scientists have projected that temperatures can increase up to 5C and more above pre industrial times without any kind of regulation:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

Temperature increase is constantly mentioned as having stopped by deniers. A bit of a problem for deniers when the 2015 temperature will be high by quite a margin.

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/

Toni, your speculation, stemming from your ignorance, as to the absence of motivation of climate scientists, to make false assertions, is irrelevant.
The facts are that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, and some climate scientists, without science to support them, continually assert that global warming is human caused. Global warming stopped almost 19 years ago, so they falsely assert that it has not stopped.
They are making false assertions. The fact that some uninformed individual says that they cannot ascertain the motive for the lies does not alter these facts.