Sardine's silly insinuations and insults sidetrack from his sophistry.

He wants to change the subject to ANYTHING but his own refusal to accept science. Now he thinks he has the right to interrogate me about my preferred policy? But I already stated several pages ago that I don't really care *how* the job gets done, as long as it gets done.

The science says we need less CO2 in the atmosphere, so let's create an ETS, or Carbon Tax, or just outright NATIONALISE energy systems till the job gets done. I could care less!

In the meantime... Sardine's true colours are revealled.

"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. "

Oh, it's not, hey? ;-) What, all those climate scientists are in on a conspiracy?

Tinfoil hat, much? (Back to square one).

Have you ever argued with a Christian fundamentalist about evolution?

They:
1. assume all issues in their own favour before starting
2. at no stage seek to falsify their own beliefs
3. don’t try to, and don't understand the case they need to answer
4. openly shun and flee logic
5. refer all questions to their authoritative texts, around and around in a circle
6. believe in a magical moral and pragmatic superbeing that will make everything good if we only have enough unquestioning faith – no need for reason and evidence - and
7. their entire concern is why other people don’t *believe* what they believe.

That’s all you’re doing.

Your religion is actually worse because they do *real* works of charity. Yours is fake and consists only of using force and threats – the law - to force people to obey and submit to violations of their freedom and property.

Fake.

You are not climatologists and therefore, according to you, you are disqualified from any opinion on climate policy. That’s the standard you’re using, so you either accept it, in which case you lose for lack of authority, or you don’t, in which case you lose for equivocation. End of story.

Science doesn’t supply value judgments, and policy requires them. Science doesn’t tell us what temperature the planet should be. All the science tells us, at most, is that temperatures are increasing. It doesn’t, of itself, justify any action. Plus you need to account for the human values you’re proposing to violate. Go ahead. You haven’t started yet. You haven’t proved that we’ll be better rather than worse off, as a result of your proposed policy. You’re only showing that you have understood neither the science nor the policy.

You are the one who complained about the lack of adult standards of argument, and now you make your entire argument, when challenged rest on nothing but sarcasm, personal insult and schoolyard name-calling.

Fail.

You still evade my questions, you still flee disproof.

Fail.

Thank you for proving that climate policy is rationally indefensible and should be abolished.

Because I'm not a climatologist, all I can tell you Jardine is that every single time I've followed a denialist myth through to the peer-reviewed science, I have found the denialist myth to be lying or telling very clever half truths.

The irony here is I refer you to the IPCC or to the world's temperature databases or to projections of what climate change *means* for us, and you stamp your foot and sneer at all that as not proof, as an 'appeal to authority'. The irony is you have far more in common with Creationists than I do. I at least respect the science. You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Not good enough, don't believe it, NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

In my next post I'll put up my summary of what the science is saying. If you want to disagree, you'll need to find peer-reviewed science to back up a credible argument against it, because this is what I have found on the effects of climate change FROM peer-reviewed science. Now, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE then you're reverting to your Creationist model of thought again, and demonstrating the irony of this whole situation. Like a Creationist, you're just refusing to READ more, aren't you? You WANT to be protected from some inconvenient truths by hiding behind a layer of stubborn ignorance. You WANT to just shout "NO EVIDENCE!" until someone has copied and pasted the entire IPCC report in here, and all the evidence the various Met offices and NASA have accumulated. Why? Because it's easy. It's trite. It's annoying, and you're an internet troll in love with the attention that a little climate-stirring gives you. Advice? If you don't like climate change, don't read about it. Go outside, breathe some fresh air, meet some people, and have a laugh. You'll live longer!

FAMINE is a potential disaster, with global grain output predicted to crash 20-25% by 2050. That’s in my kid’s lifetimes. Think of Syria. It was a political and ethnic powder keg, ready to blow. A climate-induced drought kicked a million farmers off the land and into the cities, sparking the war. Now imagine a world of 8 billion people with a quarter less food than today!

OCEANS rise as warmer water expands, and as land ice melts and pours into the sea. The current projections for 2100 are between 50cm to 1.5 meters, pressuring many coastal cities. This excludes ‘rapid dynamic’ shifts in ice sheets: in other words, they just don’t know if Greenland’s ice sheet will slip off. If it does, the oceans could rise over 6 meters, drowning most coastal cities. But at just 2 degrees of warming, millions will have to move due to rising sea levels.

EXTINCTIONS rise: at just 2 degrees of warming an estimated 30% of global species could be snuffed out. With warmer and more acidic oceans, coral bleaching will be widespread. But at 4 degrees — as early as 2070 if we continue burning fossil fuels — we lose 40% to 70% of species on earth! Now we’re talking about broader ecosystem collapse and a much more fragile biosphere.

STORMS — by which I really mean all extreme weather events, even sudden heatwaves that spark wildfires — will rise, with 1-in-500-year storms hitting more frequently. The atmosphere can carry another 5% moisture every degree it warms. It carries more water away faster, increasing both famines and floods. NASA has already named 2015 the hottest year on record by far, and all that extra energy is pushing weather to the extremes. Bushfires evolve into ‘mega-fires’, and insurance agencies wonder if they will continue to cover rural communities. The Arctic jet-stream is ‘drunk’ on the extra heat, and wobbles Arctic blizzards over North America in the middle of Spring! Heatwaves are becoming more severe, and with ‘wet bulb’ humidity will kill anyone in the equatorial regions without air-conditioning.

Jardine, you wrote "Have you ever argued with a Christian fundamentalist about evolution?"

A few days ago I had arguments with creationists ... they do not believe in evolution or science.

You do not appear to believe in scientific method; you use sophistry and insult.

But:

To survive, we need greenhouse gases, they have maintained temperature and an environment within which humans can survive. I believe that to be an apriori comment, true under all circumstances.

Since the Industrial Revolution greenhouse gases have increased.

“Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.”

From

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html

Currently, CO2 is being measured at about 405 ppm (280 ppm in comparison to 405 ppm).

The question is what is causing an increase of greenhouse gases 100 times faster than when the last ice age ended:
Coal fired power plants
Deforestation
Set fires…Indonesia to create palm oil plantations, Amazon Basin
Internal combustion motors
Aircraft
Gas appliances
Soil ... Crowther et al

All of the above have been created and/or used by man and produce greenhouse gases, another apriori situation, true at all times.

A con of the 21 Century is to come up with the prospect of “clean coal” (an oxymoron), huge amounts of CO2 are still voided, and don’t look too closely at the costs.

To sum up, man has control over the amount of greenhouse gases exhausted into the atmosphere.

The US Department of Defence certainly believes climate change is happening and has just released documentation.

Quote:

"An updated US military strategy for the Arctic says “diminishing ice levels” due to warming temperatures pose a series of security risks to the country.

Released this week at the request of Alaska senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, the 16-page document says the US must boost investment in its military assets around the North Pole.

“Diminishing sea ice will give rise to new economic opportunities in the region while simultaneously increasing concerns about human safety and protection of a unique ecosystem that many indigenous communities rely on for subsistence,” reads the Arctic Strategy."

From:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-arctic-melt-requires-updated-us-strategy/?utm_content=buffer7cd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Report:

http://www.sullivan.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016_ArcticStrategy-Unclass.pdf