I'm just in case we care about the environment :)

Peter Lang,
The Tooth Fairy said you're wrong. Debate the substance the points raised, not who published it.

Max Green

The substance of the point you raised was ad hominem. It is debated - or rather entirely debunked - by pointing out that it's a logical fallacy, which you then compound by your appeal to absent unspecified authority plus the Tooth Fairy - how appropriate.

You need to catch up with intellectual developments of 2400 years ago, feller.

All
This is just the same old same old. Every time, the warmists enter the discussion having assumed in their own favour everything in issue without showing evidence or reason, then when challenged respond with nothing but ad hominem and appeal to authority, and then go out backwards and slink off when challenged to show the workings by which they have figured out the alleged net benefits of policy, and how they would know. Then they just pop up again in another thread re-running all the same ideologically-driven nonsense they have completely failed to defend in the prior thread.

Squarking "science" is not science, you fools. It's an appeal to authority.

The fact is, all the models that predicted catastrophic global warming were wrong. And if they were right, we are already beyond the alleged tipping point and policy can't help. So it's nonsense either way.

Peter

ExxonMobil is a step closer to potentially being prosecuted for misleading financial markets. This has occurred through funding denier groups such as the Cato Institute to create confusion in rellation to climate science and their scientists in the 1970s reporting about the emissions of fossil fuels impacting on climate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/26/in-a-loss-for-exxonmobil-ny-supreme-court-orders-oil-giant-to-produce-climate-documents/?utm_term=.0295e868d83b&wpisrc=al_alert-hse

My last post was about how Arctic sea ice is reaching levels of great concern; since 1979 around 75% of sea ice volume has been lost. The trend lines for sea ice extent, amount of multi year ice, ice thickness and volume have all been going in the wrong direction for decades. A reference from a Physicist was provided.

Once the Arctic is ice free the albedo effect is lost, and the dark waters will take up heat energy. A recipe for abrupt climate change.

Already in 1912 a very short article was written about the impact of fossil fuels on the atmosphere:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/coals-link-to-global-warming-explained-in-1912/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog+Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Climate+Change&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=1#more-58613

In the 1850s (Eighteen Fifties) experiments were being conducted by Eunice Foote on the warming characteristics of CO2.

Peter, I accept the science of climate change which has a history going back almost 200 years; I do not accept denier arguments which have a history of a couple of decades +. Denier arguments stem from fossil fuel companies doing everything possible to maintain profits.

The IMF have investigated the cost of fossil fuels, they state the cost is 10 million dollars per minute:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

Ant, have a look at other stuff the IMF are involved with. In fact their principal duty is International money, surely? Those idiots have presided over the biggest debt binge since the late 1700's which resulted in catastrophy for the economies of Europe. We still have to experience this and those over paid idiots will all be on million dollar pensions. When they can start fulfilling their primary function I will listen to what they bleat about anything else!
In 1990 I was involved in a project and we needed to know year round average temperatures and humidity in Melbourne. The nice bloke at the Meteorological Bureau volunteered that temperatures they collected, were remarkably stable for the last 100 years? Now of course they doubled their budget by adding "Climate Change" to their organisation.
Personally I think halve the amount of money available to this nonsense and watch the flim flam artists depart lol.
Also it seems that there are nefarious political figures in the US funding our green revolutionaries, now why would they do that? Save the planet, don't make me laugh!

Peter you say:
"Debate the substance the points raised, not who published it."

For lay people it is possible to debate opinion; but, not possible to debate science.
The volume of sea ice volume in the Arctic Ocean has decreased by about 75% between 1979 and 2016) is a fact, it is not debatable. The volume has been obtained through PIOMAS and confirmed by satelitte.
The "about" is stated on the basis that there are yearly variations; but, the the trend line is continually going down.