ant

You know perfectly well are not interested in discussion, you are only interested just endlessly banging on with your religious beliefs about armageddon, and your endless state-worship. You openly accept that your intellectual method is fallacious, and then pop up repeating the fallacy you have just admitted.

Once you have admitted that you understand that your intellectual method is fallacious, which you have done, that's the end of the argument. You have lost. You have nothing but endless circularity and you admit that your method is not scientific.

Your arguments are refuted here:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-and-statistics-on-global-warming-climate-change-2015-12?r=US&IR=T
and here:
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/arctic-temperatures-reach-record-breaking-highs

There. How do you like it?

Just read back your last post. Notice how ALL the hidden costs that you complain about are because of state or common ownership of the resources in question? You yourself are telling us that the problem is not a free market. Yet your foregone conclusion is only more and more totalitarian government.

Not once, ever, have you addressed the issues I have raised which completely and totally refute your stupid religious belief system in the God-State. Don't post more links, silly man. Go back, read what I have written, understand it, and answer the questions that disprove you. The reason you haven't is because you know they make a fool of you and you have no answer to them.

You have learnt nothing from the last hundred years of experiments with socialist control of the economy, and now you're stupidly arguing that government should have total power to control the economy *and* the ecology.

Your endless evasion, circularity and blind religious faith are too tedious. I have proved you wrong. You have no answer than just repeating your illogical *beliefs*.

Now shut up and go away.

You don't accept that argumentation could possibly prove you wrong, so SHUT UP!

If you want to continue the discussion ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, fool.

Jardine

Exactly where have I suggested that totalitarian governments are the way to go.
Arguably the GFC was created through the free market in the US stuffing up; the tax payer had to pay the costs of major banks about to collapse.

You say elsewhere "Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific. "
Please provide the reference.

Science from an apparent Libertarian view is conducted by an essay using political and religious points of view. Under no circumstances should any matters drawn to our attention by scientists be discussed.

You suggest that climate change is a religion; the corollary must then be that Physics and Chemistry are part of that religion.

WUWT graphs are displayed showing global warming, as shown by:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-and-statistics-on-global-warming-climate-change-2015-12?r=US&IR=T

The reference provided by the Climate Council discusses temperatures in the Arctic reaching record highs.

From Scientific American (1 December, 2015):

"... there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data."

ant

You want governments to control every carbon oxidation and reduction reaction in the world = totalitarian. You want to violate people's personal and property rights to make them poorer, sicker and shorter-lived than they would otherwise be, without their consent = totalitarian.

"Arguably the GFC was created through the free market in the US stuffing up"

The Federal Reserve is a statutory monopoly charged with permanently manipulating the supply and price of money and credit. This disproves both your economically illiterate beliefs about the GFC.

Stop dealing with questions that COMPLETELY DISPROVE you, by evading them. Go back and answer my question:
"Notice how ALL the hidden costs that you complain about are because of state or common ownership of the resources in question?"

Answer it.

Your climatology arguments are refuted here:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-and-statistics-on-global-warming-climate-change-2015-12?r=US&IR=T
and here:
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/arctic-temperatures-reach-record-breaking-highs

Since that is your own method and standard of proof, you either
1. accept it as valid, in which case we have just established by agreement that your argument is baseless, or
2. you don't accept it as valid, in which case we have just established by agreement that your argument is baseless.

You prove yourself wrong by rejecting as proof me doing what you yourself are doing for proof.

You still haven't answered: what does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?

If you will not accept that argumentation could possibly prove you wrong, then why are you participating in the argument.

I am giving you the means by which my argument can be falsified. You're not: your argument is unfalsifiable and hence not rational, and therefore not scientific.

Do *not* reply with your demented technique of assuming you have already proved, posting links and simply insisting that everyone must acknowledge you are right.

You, not I, have the onus of proof.

Either answer the questions that you keep evading, or p!ss off.

All

The warmists' intellectual methodology is indistinguishable from that of fundamentalist Islamists, whose argument, like the warmists, is only:

“I am just unquestionably right, everyone must agree with my assumptions and conclusions as a precondition to entering into any discussion, and that is the beginning and end of the entire discussion. If you don’t believe me, go and read the documents I keep referring you to, which conclusively prove that I am right, and have no need to show any further proof or reason.”

When you ask them to prove what they're claiming by evidence or reason, or to answer to the ethics or pragmatics of what they're doing, or their theory of knowledge, back they come again:

“I am just unquestionably right, everyone must agree with my assumptions and conclusions as a precondition to entering into any discussion, and that is the beginning and end of the entire discussion. If you don’t believe me, go and read the documents I keep referring you to, which conclusively prove that I am right and have no need to show any further proof or reason to you.”

Over and over and over again in every post, without exception, and often larded with personal abuse as well to the effect that everyone else is too stupid to understand how clever and superior they are. Real dark ages stuff.

Ant, go back and read all your posts on this subject, and you will see that that's all you're doing, and all you've ever done. Every. Single. Post.

Now either p!ss or get off the pot. Put up or shut up. Answer the questions that I say disprove me, and that you have been too evasive to answer.

And let's just agree now, that if you assume you are right as a precondition of responding, and make your argument hang on referring us off to other people, that means we are all agreed that you are both wrong and dishonest, okay?

Jardine

When writing about the GFC, it was American Banks that had to be supported by tax payers; Australia came out of the GFC quite well. In a pure free market situation tax payers should not need to do that; that is not a totalitarian view, Jardine.

In a science situation the data does not lie. Jardine, you not being able to debunk science becomes clearer and clear with every comment you post. The science of anthropogenic climate change does not fit your view of the world, all you have is verbiage to push your arguments ;but, no science. Science and politics do not mix easily when a conservative or libertarian view is held

Iran has been virtually off limits for some time in relation to news. A very recent New York Times report indicates they have had drought conditions for several years, the quality of water is decreasing, many farms have become unsustainable, and ground water is reaching serious levels in some areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/world/middleeast/scarred-riverbeds-and-dead-pistachio-trees-in-a-parched-iran.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

The Amazon Basin is an area of great concern through the change in the water cycle, fire, and loss of biodiversity.

Quote:

"It's been estimated that the Amazon rainforest and surrounding areas are—or once were—home to upwards of 11,000 different tree species. It's also been estimated that those forests have shrunk by about 12 percent, and that human meddling could double or triple that number by 2050. Now, researchers report, the loss of forest cover could threaten the existence of more than half the tree species in the Amazon."

From:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-threatened_56500a64e4b0258edb31b709

ExxonMobil admits to anthropogenic climate change; they had also been involved with funding denier groups.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/12/video-reviews-what-exxon-knew-said/

Naomi Kleine has done much research in relation to climate change; as shown by ExxonMobil scientists her views on climate change have been substantiated.