Daviy,

There is no point in arguing with the skeptics( they don't like to be called deniers). They are a stubborn lot as are we but they, like the creationists who deny the theory of evolution, don't have the the science behind them. And they don't need it for their purpose.

Kulu
Science doesn't supply value judgments. You are simply rehearsing an incompetent argument that has already been refuted, for which you have no rejoinder but name-calling and other fallacies.

At best, science shows what the risk is. But it doesn't say whether it's worth it. That depends entirely on the value judgments of individual human beings. What is your science for coming to terms with that issue? Answer please? Or since when did you have authority to appoint yourself the spokesman of everyone else on the planet, to obey on pain of imprisonment? This is the third time I have raised this fundamental disproof of your entire argument, and the third time you have tried evading it by appeal to fallacies which have already been named.

The mere fact that you can't put forward a cogent argument doesn't mean that I am not prepared to consider one. But I'm still waiting. Mind-reading and pop psychology doesn't count. You have no right to speak for my mind.

This thread is so typical of what happens to the AGW argument when it is subjected to critical scrutiny. It starts out with a pretence of privileged knowledge of a most weighty issue, and crumbles into every kind of fallacy, ending in personal argument. The more questions you ask of it, the more incoherent the whole load of credulous codswallop becomes.

Diocletion
'At best, science shows what the risk is. But it doesn't say whether it's worth it. That depends entirely on the value judgments of individual human beings.' Hold on to that. I think you have got it.

Diocletian “At best, science shows what the risk is.”

That is “at best”

At present, ‘science’ has done nothing more than

taken a set of observations,

collected some scant and incomplete test data,

projected a hypothetical consequence,

postulated a number of theories of what the possible causes might be

presumed that attempting to address one of those possible causes (AGW), they might actually make a difference to the whole, without having quantified or assessed the significance of that one cause on the whole.


And based upon that “string vest” of conjecture, are now in cahoots with a bunch of ne’r-do-well politicians who are convinced they know better than anyone else and insist they need to impose additional carbon taxes upon an electorate who hold the key to their political future.

“But it doesn't say whether it's worth it. That depends entirely on the value judgments of individual human beings.”
“You have no right to speak for my mind.”
I wholly agree

“This thread is so typical of what happens to the AGW argument when it is subjected to critical scrutiny. It starts out with a pretence of privileged knowledge of a most weighty issue, and crumbles into every kind of fallacy, ending in personal argument. The more questions you ask of it, the more incoherent the whole load of credulous codswallop becomes.”

And all you need to do is trawl back through the posts of Q&A to see that.

Not to impose it upon you but merely exercise my right to express it

The whole exercise is merely one of

Socialism by Stealth

Last Saturday an article was published in the Australian about fascism, and gave a definition of it that is pertinent. It said many people want a Fuhrer, or a Hitler, and pointed out that to get one the State has to become a Religion, or a Church.

The absolute arch enemy of Fascism, is the Church started by a Jewish Gentleman, one of only eight Jewish Rabbi's granted the title of Master. This chap had learned his Judaism, by attending the Temple for his first thirty years,and at the age of twelve, astounding the learned Scholars of his day,by being a teacher. He like all Rabbis had a trade so he was not a burden on his congregation. He was a carpenter. This article in the Australian, pointed out the similarities between the Green Movement and Nazi Germany and the end result of that ideology.

Unfortunately the alliance between the Priests of the established Churches in both Australia and the United Kingdom,and the lawyers in both countries, has seen a radical departure from the system introduced by this Learned Rabbi, and adopted by the English as law in 1297. We no longer have a place where we can go and debate these issues, in front of a panel of expert lay judges,and get a fair just and impartial judgment passed upon our opinions, and the evidence available

Ah, the inevitable mantra of the wingnut ignoramus:

<< Socialism by Stealth >>

To quote one of his fellow-travellers:

<< You are simply rehearsing an incompetent argument that has already been refuted, for which you have no rejoinder but name-calling and other fallacies >>

Personally, I prefer to form my opinions about AGW based on information from reputable climate scientists, rather than on the rants of self-opinionated bean-counters and lawyers.