Kulu
Don’t just ignore the fact that I have refuted your argument that the science is settled. The science you refer to does not contain the relevant data sets at all, which are human values. The entire positivist argument is based on a fallacy. To be rational, to be scientific, you need to accept or refute the argument that disproves you, not ignore it. Perhaps understanding it would be a good first step.

Besides which, computer models (guesses) are not evidence. The computer models being used can’t even predict the *present*, let alone 50 or 100 years from now as they pretend to do.

And if future generations live a better life than we do now, does that mean we have a credit as against them to use more natural resources now for reasons of inter-generational equity? Fallacies piled on fallacies.

But even if the science were settled, which it isn’t, *nothing* follows from the science as a matter of policy. This is because science doesn’t supply value judgments, remember? Another refutation of your entire argument.

People are already showing their values by their actions. That’s what you don’t like, remember?

It’s human life and values that the anti-human dark greens have a problem with, not global warming. Government does not add reason or virtue, it adds force.

The reason the dark greens ignore the arguments from economics, is precisely because economics shows their arguments to be irrational.

Having failed to refute the arguments against them, the advocates of governmental action fall back to:
• Appeal to absent authority
• Assuming what is in issue
• A welter of fallacies.

The project of total control of the ecology is no less deluded than the project of total control of the economy. The advocates of government control of supposed AGW would require both, and are urging for a mere re-run of the Soviet disaster.

Ostentatious religious piety has merely come back into fashion, that is all

Houellebecq “I don't know if I've heard you say that before? It does have a nice ring to it. Shhh, don't say it too loud or they might know we're on to them.”

LOL

Yes Houellebecq, you would have seen me use the phrase many times over the past year to 18 months and thankyou.

It is designed to have a “catchy” ring.

I think it is even catchier than its Cato inspiration “ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”

“I am keen on stopping pollution even though I am AGW sceptic.”

On this matter we would concur but see you too have the wisdom to recognise and acknowledge the difference.

PeterTheBeliever “HAARP” – somehow the hysteria site you listed is nothing but that… hysteria.
The real site was quite interesting though and I doubt could ever produce the consequences the hysterics anticipated.

Personally,. I would put any HAARP military significance (beyond radar and navigation) in the same category as “Star Wars” and whilst one of the most significant and a fabulously successful deterrent strategy’s, is still in the “does-not-work” achievement category.

Diocletian “The project of total control of the ecology is no less deluded than the project of total control of the economy.”

Absolutely correct and like they say, if you want four economic theories, just ask two economists

Simply substitute “climate science” and “scientists” for “economic theories” and “economists”.

OZandy “I've been following the climate change issues for over 15 years and the science *is* now settled...for those who know what science is.”
Anyone who thinks that 15 years is a long time in research needs to consider, “economics” has been a serious academic study for at least 200 years yet, as the comment from Diocletian accurately and succinctly observes, “control” is still a matter of opinion and conjecture.

Therefore Ozandy, I am forced to conclude, your entire education has focused on the study and research of hubris.

Because that is all which can be gleaned from your last post.

Michael Crichton is dead, but his works are still published. One of them is entitled State of Fear, and mixed in with the drama, is a fairly heavy critique of the Global Warming phenomena. His postulate is that governments have to have the general population fearful of something. When the wall came down, the Soviet Union was no longer a threat, and he contends that the government needed to invent one. It has been cranked up as the war on terror has become boring to many.

Right in the middle of the story, is a professor who wanted to attend a conference, and expose the global warming movement. The efforts made to manipulate public opinion are extreme. Michael Crighton concludes that if all the evidence were put before a jury, as is the right of all in the United States, a right currently lapsed in Fascist Australia, then a jury would find no case to answer. Currently in Australia there is no right to jury trial in civil matters, and further to that, no absolute right to apply to the Federal Court or High Court, even in their original jurisdiction. As a believer I believe that carbon dioxide is an essential plant food, and that if the world could get its act together, to abolish poverty and starvation, the worlds farmers would be the prime movers in removing carbon and restoring balance.

Forty years ago, in 1969, the Liberal ( run the bastards over) Party repealed the Australian Constitution in New South Wales and established a Fascist Republic. Not one Attorney General, or one leader of either political party, has expressed concern at this. Since we now have a Christian Prime Minister maybe, the Christian system of government established by the Constitution will be restored. If so the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will be accepted as law, a fair just and impartial tribunal of fact could examine the facts of Global Warming, and that tribunal should be the Special Jury, provided until 1970, for just such cases. Give us back our Commonwealth

Michael Crichton also wrote about alien viruses destroying an American town and genetically engineered dinosaurs running amok.

The climate alarmist's favourite words: could, might, may.
The words they find hardest to use: didn't, hasn't, my mistake.

Diocletian, yep ... the dark greens should pull their heads in.
______________

Col, you’re probably caught up with other things, but ...
http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx

or this from the Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa034360-d612-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html
Have Munich Re got it wrong too?
______________

Fungo

As has been said elsewhere; the stages of ‘global warming denial’:-

1. Global warming isn’t happening
2. It’s happening but it’s natural
3. There’s some anthropogenic component, but it is insignificant
4. Yes, the anthropogenic component is significant, but the effect won’t be much
5. Yes, the effects will be substantial, but mostly beneficial
6. We can easily adapt to the negative effects
7. Yes, the effects will be really negative, but nothing can be done
8. There are things that could have been done, but we’ve delayed for so long it’s too late
9. Friggin scientists, they should have been more assertive

My neighbour (a psychologist) over a bbq related the ‘denial defence mechanism’.

Typically, a person in denial is faced with particulars that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. Therefore, they reject them instead, insisting that they are not true despite overwhelming evidence.

They may deny the reality of unpleasant things altogether (simple denial), admit them but deny their seriousness (minimisation) or admit them and their seriousness but deny responsibility for acting (transference).

What really is worrying is that they typically deny their denial.

Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviours which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behaviour. This form of denial typically overlaps with all the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion.

Btw, Ian knew I prefaced my comment by having a senior moment too – it’s called memories.