As a scientist I thought I might learn something from Jardine's post. It soon became clear that I wouldn't. Jardine could do with a bit more humility and less certainty in his view of how science works. Let me suggest, for example, that there is absolutely nothing unscientific about what I have just written for publication on climate/energy policy: "Scientific knowledge about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas has a long and respectable history. The 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels since the industrial revolution is undisputed. There may be some doubts about the precise impact but the prudent course, at the very least, is to accept that CO2 emissions affect climate and try to lower them." OK Jardine, prove that I'm wrong.

Nice try Tombee but you're only trying to reverse the onus of proof. In any event, there's no need for me to go baying after your red herring, as it is at best only subsidiary and is not capable of deciding the general issue.

If you want to justify any climate or energy policy, you have the onus of proof, so go ahead. Prove it. You can start by answering the questions that all the warmists have COMPLETELY FAILED to join issue on, let alone prove.

Go on. Prove your case. Make sure you answer:
"Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):
- how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
- how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with? Show your workings."

All you're doing is proving the warmists' perfectly uniform pattern of immediate descent into fallacy any and every time they are challenged.

Answer the questions that, if you can, prove you right and me wrong.

I liked Lomborg and have listened to more than one of his extremely rational, exceptionally persuasive lectures. The last in Copenhagen and on the incontrovertible advantages of ultra cheap clean, safe thorium power?

See U tube and hope it hasn't been pulled yet!?
Alan B.

This question should be thoroughly answered in any national energy review.

What is causing the actual sea surface temperatures (SST) that are an anomaly in AGW climate change science?

It appears Tombee should be able to give example of the answer here and now on OLO.

One can't prove that JKJ is a troll for the "denialists" but his/her posts support the inference.

Science can't prove that gravity exists although they may recently have for the first time measured "gravity waves" to support Newton's theory but...I bet JKJ would not wish to skydive without a chute; just in case gravity is real.

By measurement/experiment we know that greenhouse gases affect temperature positively, we know that greenhouse gases have increased hugely since the industrial revolution, we can therefore infer that CO2 affects temperature. Can we prove it? No science research can either prove or disprove a phenomenon, merely establish a theory and see if it can be surpassed by a more likely theory over time.

We know that temperature changes affect regional agriculture and we can infer that a warming environment will cause dislocation of agriculture; think large scale failure of Australia's wheat belt as these regions trend to arid conditions.

At this point you call for proof...where is your proof that the observable facts of warmer oceans, more energy intensive storms and weather events, melting tundra etc is not caused by CO2 in the atmosphere?

PS JKJ must be one of the 75 people who voted for Malcolm Roberts I guess.