"Why bother? Henceforth I won't."

Good, because your comprehension is too low to process all this in context. I invite others to read it in context.

Honestly, you warmists are like a self-humiliating satire of religious fanatics.

You have proved nothing.

All you've done is
- enter the discussion having assumed what you have the onus of proving
- pretended to do this by appeal to authority (while admitting that circular logic disproves you LOL)
- when challenged, asserted that the "evidence" vindicates you, but
a) the evidence you refer to is entirely that selected, treated, presented, and interpreted by the AUTHORITIES YOU APPEAL TO you fools.
b) without rationality, evidence is no better than "evidence" of the Biblical creation or the Holy Spirit.

But the crowning piece of your foolery is your idea that "the laws of physics" provide the terms of policy BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

(Wipes tear of mirth from eye, aaaaaaaah) Guys, that is way beyond ignorant - you're displaying a COMPLETE FAILURE to understand what you're talking about.

Your entire complaint is only, why don't other people believe what you believe? Pathetic credulity.

Now.

1. Got that calculation there yet fellers, showing how you worked out the benefits versus detriments of alleged catastrophic global warming, in terms of the subjective values of all relevant human beings, in the status quo versus your preferred policy counterfactual, in units of a lowest common denominator? SHOW YOUR WORKINGS.

2. Did you use a discount for futurity? If not, why not? If so, what is it, and justify it. SHOW YOU WORKINGS.

Bleating and squaring the word "science" doesn't turn your anti-human superstitious gibberish into something other than anti-human superstitious gibberish.

You subsist not on reason or evidence - which you actively and dishonestly evade - but on corrupt political parasitism, which is coming to an end soon so ... SUCK EGGS GUYS!

Your failure to answer my specific questions concedes the entire issue in my favour.

Jardine waffles and sidetracks, all the while ignoring the Stern Report, the Garnaut Report, and the World Bank report.

Poor guy. With all the credible evidence and credible costings he just ignores, he's not only embarrassing himself, but causing us to question just how well he can read? But he certainly likes the sound of his own voice!

Again, long-winded much?

Google those reports I mentioned so you don't embarrass yourself as much. Off you go. There's a good chap!

Max Green squirms and wriggles, all the while ignoring the Stern Report, the Garnaut Report, and the World Bank report.

There's only two things he lacks:
1. evidence, and
2. reason.

Now. Try to put aside your commitment to dishonest evasion for once, and just answer.

1. Got that calculation there yet, showing how you worked out the benefits versus detriments of alleged catastrophic global warming, in terms of the subjective values of all relevant human beings, in the status quo versus your preferred policy counterfactual, in units of a lowest common denominator? SHOW YOUR WORKINGS.

2. Did you use a discount for futurity? If not, why not? If so, what is it, and justify it. SHOW YOU WORKINGS.

Your failure to answer concedes the general issue in my favour. You have failed to prove what you need to prove, end of story.

Peter Schrader
Are you paying attention?

Notice how AT NO STAGE, has any warmist in this thread even tried to identify what they think the problem is, what the solution is, and how they would know? They are operating in a logic-free zone. It's not a rational discourse. It's a religious hysteria.

All they've done is enter the discussion with a foregone conclusion, NEVER been open to consider that they might be wrong, put forward an illogical circularity as proof, insulted and patronised anyone who dares to challenge them, and then gone round and round and round and round and round, throwing out ad hominems and non sequiturs in equal measure.

That's it.

That's what you've got, and that's ALL you've got.

All you need to know about your precious authorities, is that THEY'RE USING THE SAME INTELLECTUAL METHODOLOGY YOU ARE.

They're not engaged in an attempt to find out WHETHER we face catastrophic global warming that policy can improve. They're PAID to find demonstrations THAT government intervention is warranted.

If you warmists decide not to prove, fine.

Have it your way.

That's a fail, and any failures in climate policy are your fault.

No mate, here's how science works. Empirical evidence overturns older, less perfect models. Newton had a great model, but it didn't explain Mercury's transit. Along came Einstein and his theory of relativity, and the curvature of space-time, and his math and theory had a better explanation. It might not be the 100% correct, but it's the best we've got so far.

In his day, Newton and his laws were the 'expert', the 'authority'. Just sitting around sneering at Newton or his models isn't science. Anyone can sit in an armchair, stroke their narcissism, and sneer. Easy. But to actually CRITIQUE the existing theory, one cannot just SNEER. One has to have a better model, a better mind, a better breakthrough and have that breakthrough idea tested against the real world. You have none of these things. You're just an armchair critic, internet troll, and denialist. You and I are not climate scientists. I advise a little humility, until a REAL, peer-reviewed paper overturns climate science in such a compelling way that the IPCC admits there is a new model and we can all stop being concerned.

"Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

Max

You're *ASSUMING* that the theory in issue, is logical in the first place.

But that's precisely what you've
a) failed, and
b) refused
to prove, remember?

Let's get one thing straight.

You're the side asserting that we face a problem of global warming, need climate policy, and that current climate policy is not good enough. Okay? Fair enough?

*You* have the onus of proof.

If you refuse to engage as to reason or evidence, fine. Have it your way.

That's a complete fail.

You lose.

If you want to know why climate policy fails you - look in the mirror.

As for Newton etc. you are failing to understand the most basic concept of science.

*If* your process of reasoning is *irrational*, you don't even get to "evidence" (- think Puritans). You get knocked out before first base. Okay? Understand?

I have shown why you're reasoning fails to comply with the principles of rationality.

It is *not* a requirement of the discourse that I must accept your assumptions, premises, reasoning, and conclusions as a precondition of entering into the discussion.

That's just a straight-out logical fallacy.

Fail.

End of story.

I can point out dozens of fatal non sequiturs in your reasoning, but two will suffice for here.
1. Temperature data, of themselves, do not give the terms of policy. That's just a straight-out glaring logical fallacy, absurd in its stupid simplicity.

2. The fallacy of your appeal to authority is not fixed by
a) puffing yourself up with windy indignation, nor
b) referring to the "evidence", which is to be proved by requiring me to agree with all your selection, treatment, presentation and conclusions of evidence as a precondition of the discussion.

You have not only failed to EVEN BEGIN to discharge your burden of proof, you have demonstrated a failure to understand the requirements of a chain of logical thought, let alone science.

The absolute *reliance* of your argument on patronising insult, and repeatedly squarking the word "science" as some kind of talisman, don't help you.

You've proved my case, not yours.

Answer my questions.