Jardine

You say: "All you're saying is "I believe, I *believe*, ...."

Jardine you produce much nay saying without the slightest amount of evidence to support what you say; to use your word it is hardly "intellectual" on your part.

Max and I, do provide references to support what we state.
You clearly do not support the scientific method. Sophistry is the tool of the denier.

You see, children, with *real* science, you try to falsify your hypothesis. What you're doing is the *opposite*.

What you're doing is blocking your ears, going "La-la-la-la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", licking the arses of your priestly class, and calling it "science".

If you can't answer my questions, you lose the argument, simple as that.

My questions show why you are wrong, and you refuse, and can't show why you are right. So you lose. End of matter.

Neither of you have understood that unless you can CONNECT the physical data to the normative data, you haven't got anything.

Your mere malevolent hysterics in response prove my case, not yours.

Now answer my questions you fools:
1. Prove, by reference to the subjective values of all relevant human beings now and indefinitely into the future, how you worked out the detriments versus benefits of global warming. What was your data set? Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

2. Prove how you know that the benefits of your preferred climate policy outweigh the detriments. Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

3. Are you using a discount for futurity? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

4. Who’s this “we” you’re talking about?

Max

I've already explained to you, and you *haven't understood*.

Okay?

Now get out of your circular loop, and TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

I *told* you. EVEN IF ALL THE CLIMATOLOGY WERE CONCEDED - (which it's not) - YOU STILL WOULDN'T HAVE GOT TO SQUARE ONE IN ESTABLISHING A CLIMATE POLICY.

Now don't go any further.

Stop.

Go back.

*Read* it.

And don't take another step until you have understood.

It means that, for purposes of argument, we could assume that EVERYTHING you are saying were conceded. Okay? Got that? Read it again. That's the same thing as saying, we could assume you had won every point you are arguing for. (You haven't, but let's just assume it.) Okay? Got that? Understood?

AND YOU STILL WOULD HAVE NOTHING.

*AFTER* you have understood what I'm saying, *THEN* you will be in a position to attempt to join issue.

As it is now, you simply don't understand that you don't understand.

More squarking, more insults, and more posting links cannot save your hopeless bewilderment.

*Learn* to *understand* what you're talking about, you fool.

You are stuck in a preliminary whirligig, and have not managed to find your way onto the course.

(Slaps hand to forehead).

Yeah, it's real hard Jardine, real hard.

The science is saying too much CO2 is a really bad, bad thing.

What do YOU think the policy should be? Something about reducing CO2 maybe?

(Slaps hand to forehead again. Denialist's just ain't what they used to be).

More sophistry, Jardine.

The Washington Post has just published an article in relation to the Arctic, the author states very clearly that while there is natural variability being displayed it hangs off man created change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/01/beyond-the-extreme-scientists-marvel-at-increasingly-non-natural-arctic-warmth/?sdfsdfsdfsdfsd&utm_term=.fdb0b0d1ff3d

A number of scientists are interviewed.

Remember Jardine, we need greenhouse gases to survive and CO2 has increased from about 270 ppm prior to Industrial revolution to over 400 ppm currently. I write "about" as there is a small degree of seasonal variation.

Mark Serreze, a climate scientist writes:

"One could argue that these events are just expressions of natural variability in Arctic climate superimposed upon the overall pattern of warming and sea-ice loss. But changes in extreme weather and climatic events in recent years have been well documented around the world. Heat waves have tended to be hotter, and a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, raising prospects for excessive precipitation. Random extreme events have always been a part of the climate system, but by loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, we’ve also loaded the dice. Are the recent events in the Arctic examples of what we’ll be seeing more of in the near future? Time will tell. But after studying the Arctic and its climate for three and a half decades, I have concluded that what has happened over the last year goes beyond even the extreme."

from:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-crazy-times-arctic

Your sophistry means nothing when put up against what scientists are saying. The scientists have data to back their case, you do not.

Honestly, it's like talking to a creation scientist, a jihadi, or an undergraduate Marxist.

Max even admits that he's begging the question, and STILL doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.

Do you think it's not obvious why you are evading answering my questions? Because you know perfectly well that they prove you wrong. Otherwise you would have answered them, wouldn't you?

Anticipating your predictable snivelling little backbite, the same doesn't apply to my not-answering your questions, since EVEN IF I CONCEDED THEM ENTIRELY - which I don't - you still would be three logical fallacies away from EVEN BEGINNING get to square one to make your case.

In any event, what does it matter to you whether I share your irrational opinions?

And why are you communicating with me using fossil fuels and metals?