"You're absolutely right, the 2 degree limit IS political."

So after writing who knows how many posts admonishing others to "do the math" and ridiculing those who don't 'know' that we can only burn 565gt (not 564 or 566 mind you), as soon as someone points out the complete lack of rigour in your numbers you cave. Admit it? No. Instead move on to some other equally fatuous assertions.

Its impossible to hold custard in your fingers because it has no substance.

Max

If a group of 16th century Puritans, having a discussion about the Holy Spirit, convince themselves that they are talking “science”, that doesn’t mean it’s science, does it?

Same with you. Whether or not you are talking science is not determined by how fervently or how often you say the word “science” itself.

1.
It depends on the thought process, which must *at the very least* comply with the principles of rationality. If it doesn’t, your consideration of the “evidence” is liable to the risk of error from irrationality.

2.
Scientific proof of a proposition cannot take the form of assuming that everyone must agree with it as a precondition of entering into the discussion.

3.
Once your subject matter begins to include human preferences or values, then the relevant science has to deal scientifically with those subjective values. This includes the question how to assess human subjective evaluation of benefits and detriments, how to evaluate costs or detriments which people choose to externalize onto other non-consenting people; and human evaluations further and further into the future.

“Please demonstrate where I have shown circular logic.”

Sure:
“I don't care if we use a carbon trading scheme, a carbon tax, or just downright NATIONALISE the energy sector and get the government rolling cheap factory produced breeder reactors off the production line. The policy actually bores me! I just want to see the job getting done.”

You’re assuming that
1. we face a problem of catastrophic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions that policy can solve or improve at a worthwhile cost
2. the proof of these proposition is in appeal to authority
3. policy can do, what you want it to do, better than no-policy, and considering all the relevant risks and costs, upsides and downsides.

Correct?

Not misrepresenting you there in those 3 points, am I?

By asking me to demonstrate logical error, you implicitly admit that, if I can, it invalidates your political opinion on climate policy. Yes? Please confirm you agree with that statement?

Saints
I was going to respond to you earlier, but thought somebody else would, Max very patiently showed you how your comprehension of very basic points was very poor. When you do not comprehend very basic points shown by the article, how can you be taken seriously when writing about science. Dr Peter Schrader is a General Practitioner, very clearly shown.

I have responded now, on the basis of your scathing comments of Doctors it is no different than Max's comments about wearing tin foil hats. Except, when Max writes he refers to science, it is frustrating when ignorant comments come floating back. Your comment: "Any one could be called a "Dr" - please provide some emphirical evidence as to claims - which we can all equate to." says it all. One thing that is abundantly clear; Saints, and that is you are definitely not a Doctor!

Science is backed by replicable data; Saints, you make some statements without backing them up. As a result, you statements are nothing but nonsense. To have any credibility you statements need to be shown to be true through using the 9 criteria used by Seth Miller at:

http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.joydizarj

Dr Schrader in his article uses several hyperlinks to display how he has arrived at what he says.
Deniers of anthropogenic climate change use sophistry; and, when they do provide references (a rare occasion) the references lack credibility.

* JARDINE * It’s not an “appeal to authority” if the overwhelming weight of the scientific EVIDENCE backs those authorities, and all those authorities do is articulate that evidence. BTW, want to add some hot air to your long winded post? You certainly like the sound of your own voice.

* MHAZE *, it’s called context. Bazz asserted that global warming would was impossible because there are not enough fossil fuels. So I supplied the Bill McKibben “Do the math” article where the 3rd number is the most pertinent - 565 Gigatons! That’s how much is on the books, and it takes us 5 times past the POLITICAL figure of 2 degrees they agreed at Copenhagen.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Here is Bill presenting 3 minutes of “The Math” where he says...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtGg-Lvxso

“In political terms, it’s the only thing that anybody has agreed to. Some of you may remember that climate summit in Copenhagen. There was only ONE number in the final 2 page voluntary accord that people signed... 2 degrees. …. the most conservative, RECALCITRANT countries on earth, EVEN the United States – IF THE WORLD OFFICIALLY believes anything about climate change, it’s that 2 degrees is too much.”

Did you hear his disdain for the political process?

The next number flows from that political agreement on 2 degrees, and that’s the 565 gigatons.

But the science says we are already way too high at over 400ppm, and Bill McKibben founded 350.org, based on what the SCIENCE says. Even Paris agreed the new limit should be 1.5 degrees – even though national commitments from all the participates still condemns us to 4 degrees. I’ll let you figure out the rest.

Max

Don't think your evasion combined with personal abuse, went unnoticed. That's your idea of "behaving like an adult", is it?

Let's cut to the chase.

Isn't it true that you assume or assert THAT:

1. we face a problem of catastrophic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions that policy can solve or improve at a worthwhile cost?

Yes? No?

2. you assert that you prove that in this forum by posting links to authorities, without yourself providing any reason or evidence in this forum, but your entire argument consists only of assuming and insisting that I must accept your opinion about the authorities’ opinion? Yes? That’s correct, isn’t it? If not, why not?

(It's no use talking about "the evidence" while:
a) you refuse to accept that your argument must comply with the principles of rationality and logic in the first place, and
b) the evidence is to be proved by mere circular repetition of the same process of appeal to authority, which only begs the question. (You asked me to demonstrate where you have shown circular logic. Consider it demonstrated. All you're doing is going round and round in circles, insisting that you must be right.)

3. policy can do, what you want it to do, better than no-policy, and considering all the relevant risks and costs, upsides and downsides. Yes? You assume that, don't you?

4. By asking me to demonstrate logical error, you implicitly admit that, if I can demonstrate fundamental logical error on your part, it invalidates your political opinion on climate policy. Yes? Please confirm you agree with that statement?

MHAZE & BAZZ.

Apologies for the typo. The 3rd number is of course 2,795 gigatons, which is about 5 times more than the politically agreed on ‘budget’ of 565 gigatons, or 2 degrees. But recent sensitivity studies indicate there may be no safe level of warming from here on, and that 400ppm is way too much already.

JARDINE.
Seriously? Long-winded, much?

Dude, YOU decided to reject the science - and while I understand it’s a free country - don’t come whining to me that you want to be respected for rejecting science, or acting like you’ve got some moral high ground. All the evidence any rational person could require is there. Grow up and accept the consequences of your *choice* to ignore the science. I have absolutely no interest in being lectured to about rational discourse by someone of your ilk. What, all those scientists are ‘in error’, and only you know better? They got the laws of physics wrong, the demonstrable math of the Radiative Forcing Equation, the measurable data like temperatures and seasons changing and ice thinning? They don’t know what they’re doing, and only your Royal Highness does? They’re all in error? Or is it all just the largest conspiracy in the history of the human race? The bottom line - I'm not jumping through any of your long-winded hoops, especially after having to report one of your posts for being personally abusive to another forum member. Until you actually say something worth addressing, buzz off.