Max

Thank you for proving my point. You have nothing but circular credulity, and malevolent personal abuse.

"What, all those scientists are ‘in error’, and only you know better?"

You just told me you are *not* relying on appeal to authority, remember?

Well?

What do you think that is?

Your entire argument is just nothing but unquestioning blind faith in authority.

Peter
You see, what Max, Billyd, and you are all demonstrating, is an irrational belief system, not a scientific belief system.

When people have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that their claims must be rational, and openly refuse, that means it's not scientific.

When they enter the debate assuming that everyone must agree with them as a precondition of any discussion, that's irrational and religious, not scientific.

When they stake their entire debate on *belief* ("heretic"/"denialist"), that's not science.

When they meet all challenges of evidence and reason by circularly insisting on authority, that's not science. That's the *OPPOSITE* of science.

When they personally abuse anyone who dares to disagree with them, that's not science.

The reason both Max and Billyd refuse to explicitly admit that their argument must comply with the principles of rationality, is because they know perfectly well that the next step will be checkmate for them.

So they choose evasion, and intellectual dishonesty, not knowing, or not caring, that this proves nothing about climate but their own illogic.

All
Thus we have just established in here - AGAIN! - that belief in climate policy is rationally indefensible.

The warmists make no attempt to even begin to identify the specific alleged problem, issues of reason or evidence, a successful outcome, or a successful process, or how they would know.

All we ever get is this endless patronising lecture, personal abuse, and double standards.

You warmists can add this fail to your pile:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16726&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16753&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16757&page=0

You have lost the intellectual and ethical debate for obvious reasons.

And your elitist anti-human corrupt parasitic superstition is soon coming to an end.

Okay? Got that?

"And your elitist anti-human corrupt parasitic superstition is soon coming to an end."
I hope you're right, despite the fact that even the Mythbusters were able to prove the laws of physics around CO2! It's not that hard, really. It's established. It's something one looks up in an OLD physics textbook.

Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

But still, I hope you're right, and that there's some magical, as-yet-unknown climate dampener that will stop runaway warming. I hope to wake up one day with the peer-reviewed science finally figuring something like that out, so that we can all take a deep breath and then get back to business. Because the last umpteen years have been the hottest on record, and each year seems to break the previous year's records! (And yet you just assert there's no evidence. Just click your ruby slippers together like Dorothy and repeat, "There's no global warming, there's NO global warming, THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING!")

2016 CLIMATE TREND CONTINUES...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records/

Oh yeah, that's right, all those NASA guys are just wrong. There's no evidence. This random Jardine dude I met on a forum said so! ;-) (You people crack me up!)

Jardine , you are very loose with the references you provided, past online opinion articles do not represent anything near what would be expected in a prestige science journal. Show how these articles fit the 9 criteria that Seth Miller has described, previously referenced twice. Online opinion articles written by contrarians offer nothing other than themes continually regurgitated andthemes have previously been debunked.

We need greenhouse gases in the right proportions to survive.
Coal fired electricity plants create greenhouse gases.
Internal combustion engines create CO2 and other gases.

The question is, where in historical times preceding the Industrial Revolution were there coal fired electricity plants and internal combustion engines?

How the LarsonC ice sheet break down fits in with your commentary, I'm not sure!
Also, a British base in Antarctica has had to be moved through the ice sheet it was perched upon was breaking down.
Ocean have taken in much warmth over the last twenty plus years, the so called hiatus did not happen; unless you believe Oceans are not part of Earth.

To have any viability your conspiracy theory needs to go back to the 1820s( Fourier), then to 1850s ( Foote), a bit later to Tyndall etc etc. In other words, your conspiracy theory doesn't get past the criteria set by Seth Miller (already referenced).

http://youtu.be/aDB7QBjxoW8

So Maximum,

As with the 97% number, the 565 number is another of those things that are just too good to be abandoned. So you have no interest in determining if the number has any validity, just a robotic adherence to what you've been told to believe. When I make a series of points that show why the number has no validity, you simply ignore the issues and continue to believe the number. Any wonder some call this a religion.

Its garbage derived from garbage and blind adherence to it reveals all that needs revealing. You claim to support the science but that's not science. What you do is cravenly support the side.

Mhaze,
so you don't like science? You're following denialist dogma (faith / religion) because the Radiative Forcing just doesn't work for you? Sorry, what POINTS do you think you scored against the raw physics of what we are talking about?

I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't. Oh that we could click our fingers and convert every coal fired power station to a nuke overnight! But it's going to take time to build out the clean energy system, and you banging on about your political conspiracy theories just doesn't sit well in this emergency.

"565 gigatons tons CO2 allowance before we get to 2 degrees"

"Do the math! We're 'allowed' to burn 565 gigatons "

"Do the math” article where the 3rd number is the most pertinent - 565 Gigatons!"

"the politically agreed on ‘budget’ of 565 gigatons"

All quotes from Maximum. All in posts asserting that the numbers are firm and calculated ("Do the maths" he says, all the while not actually understanding the maths at all). All the while saying people who don't accept his assertions are ignoring this data of 565gt.

And then when pressed to defend the number, defend the calculation we get...

"I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't.."

He believed it before he didn't. He believed it yesterday and he'll believe it tomorrow but today, since he's asked to justify it, he doesn't believe it.

Even I'm embarrassed for him.

Why bother? Henceforth I won't.