You are not climatologists, and this disqualifies you from any opinion on climate policy, according to you, end of story.

Jardine

David Rose, Delingpole, James Taylor, Joana Nova, Watts, Monckton, Whitehouse et al are not climatologists; yet, they write about how climatologists are wrong. They do not provide data to hold up their opinions.

We provide citations to science; when are you going to provide references to science?

Jardine,
sulking much?

Unfalsifiable beliefs = not science.

Appeal to authority = not science.

Bodging up results to arrive at foregone political conclusions = not science.

Unreplicatable results, hiding data and algorithms = not science.

Consensus science = not science. According to your theory of science, phlogiston was science.

Computer models as evidence, failed predictions = not science.

Jumble of illogic defended by patronising insult = not science.

You’re only making complete fools of yourself.

Only useful idiots or fraudulent parasites believe that sh!t, and even the latter don’t believe it.

Jardine:

In YOUR world:

In your world glaciers are not regressing.
The Arctic sea ice volume is the same as it was in 1979.
Rain bombs are not happening.
There is no such thing as blue sky day floods.
Oceans have not been warming.
Greenhouse gases have not been increasing.
Organisms have not been moving habitats.
Deforestation is not happening.
Wildfire seasons are not increasing.
Antarctic ice sheets are not being undermined through warm waters.
Melt pools/lakes have not been forming on Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets.
Disease vectors are not changing.
Coral bleaching has not been happening.
Greenhouse gases have little or no impact on climate.

In the world of science all of those matters have been found to be happening. Satellites provides data, instrumentation provides data, and observation provides evidence. In YOUR world scientific method is not used. Replicable experimentation does happen, first occurring in the 1850s; more sophisticated experimentation has happened; Max, has made many references to it.

In a world of alternative facts (often lies) climate science is mistaken; in the real world many science disciplines show consilience. Consilience means ... "agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities. "

Nature does not tell lies:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/mon-repos-turtles-hurting-in-heatwave-qld/8230036

You misuse the term appeal to authority, we produce references to science, you do not.

"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert."

Examples of sites of non experts are Heartlands, Cato Institute, WUWT, IPA, Rose, Delingpole, Joanna Nova et al.

Examples of scientific Agencies are CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, JAXA et al; these Agencies provide data from the real world.

ant

I have shown why your beliefs are illogical, you have not answered my points, you lose, you fail, end of story.

Endlessly repeating your beliefs does not make them true, and neither does calling your illogic "science".

Your religious frenzy has no basis in reality.

I have shown that your belief system suffers from three fundamental flaws:

1. The *data* do not support your *assumptions*.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/mon-repos-turtles-hurting-in-heatwave-qld/8230036
http://www.sullivan.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016_ArcticStrategy-Unclass.pdf
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
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-crazy-times-arctic
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
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#.WI_SkrZ9670
http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf
http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/
http://youtu.be/aDB7QBjxoW8
http://www.slate.com/blogs/
http://climate.nasa.gov/http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.joydizarj
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

By your own methodology, to your own standards, this constitutes a complete refutation of your argument.

Besides, you aren't a climatologist so by your argument, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

2. You have not shown any rational basis for your *assumption* that the detriments outweigh the benefits.

3. You have not shown any rational basis for your *assumption* that the benefits of policy outweigh the detriments.

The very when I offer you the means to falsify my argument and prove your beliefs correct, and you run away, and evade, and dodge, and wriggle, and squirm - do you think people can't notice this?

Your pretended concern for all mankind is fake. You support corrupt parasitism, braying hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and fake ostentatious neo-Puritanism, that is all.

Fake, fake, fake.

Enjoy climate policy while it lasts.