You said:
“I guess, at the of the day, I’m just not conspiracy-minded enough to believe that hundreds of scientists are dishonest enough and willing to ditch all that they stood for while studying, to work every day with the intention of seeing how they can further fudge the figures for a political agenda and to feather their nests. People in general are not that bad.”

All that is necessary to account for the entire belief system is to understand that those climate scientists are people too and *might be using the same intellectual technique that you are*!

Your response confirms exactly what I accused you of in my first post: “you are only proving yet again that the entire warmist argument consists of assuming what is in issue… and of course, the perpetual fall-back of the warmist camp, personal argument.”

You alleged in your first post, while insulting the skeptics with irrationality, that you had satisfied yourself that the *science* was right. But on investigation, it turns out *you just did exactly what they do* – you assumed it must be right because everyone else was saying so!

But that’s not science. It’s groupthink. That’s not evidence, it’s authority. It’s not critical thinking, it’s credulity – the OPPOSITE of science.

I know a guy who is a very highly educated scientist who told me that he believes AGW because a very highly educated friend of his had assured him about it, and had referred to a scientific paper that purported to show that the water level of Fremantle harbour was rising, with which he challenged me. When I pointed out it would have to rise everywhere else to confirm the theory, he had nothing to say. In other words, his technique was *seeking to prove* rather than to disprove it – the religious, not the scientific method.

On the one hand, my allegation of the religiosity of warmist method is well-founded, for the following reasons.

Firstly all your critique of skepticism ASSUMES that the warmists have made their case but you yourself can’t represent it when challenged to, except to ASSUME that their wodges of papers must prove it.

Secondly, you regard the vested interests of an entire industry and empire of government funded climate scientists, and the prospect of an enormous expansion in their budgets, as ENTIRELY UNPROBLEMATIC relative to the knowledge in issue.

(There is no need to assert a “conspiracy theory” to explain AGW: merely doing what you have done - assuming what is in issue, reposing faith in authority, and seeking to prove rather than disprove it, will explain the result. And as for those scientists who have come out and said it’s baseless, they are many –categorized as “denialists” by the warmist orthodoxy – a completely circular argument again!)

Discussion of AGW is not as a mere speculation on climatology, divorced from any question of policy or government funding. The very nature of the discussion is that AGW presents us with the need for urgent political action, else the question would raise no more political issue than do the proceedings of the entomological society.

Thirdly science does not supply value judgments, while policy requires them. So even if the positive science proved AGW, it is a *complete non sequitur*, and therefore unscientific, to reason therefore that *any policy action whatsoever* is indicated.

Fourthly, no-one ever rationally justifies the process of reasoning by which we go from the alleged physical problem, to government being ASSUMED to have the knowledge, the capacity and the selflessness to make things better than worse.

“If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual’s actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being.”
Ludwig von Mises

Thus there *is* religiosity riddled throughout the AGW belief system:
• its belief in a coming catastrophe (judgment day/ tipping point) threatening the continuance of human life on earth
• its belief that the problem is due to human moral fault (sin/”consumerism”)

• a belief in a final stasis (Paradise/sustainability) in which the economic problems of naturally scarcity are permanently and morally solved
• virtuousness of repudiating material desires for sake of salvation
• a belief in a greater moral good over and above mere selfish and unworthy mundane interests
• those who critique it are “denialists” (heretics) as if the issue were one of faith rather than reason
• a belief in a sacerdotal class privileged to read the mysterious signs (climate models) foretelling doom inscrutable to the common herd
• there’s the time-frame (not near enough to be disproved, but near enough to be worried about)
• the irrational intellectual method of assuming the problem and then trying to prove, rather than to disprove it
• the belief in a superhuman being, and the reverencing of a corporation, as all-knowing, omnipotent and morally superior, charged with rectifying man’s error and showing the path to salvation
• the rituals of righteousness – now using dim lights is holy, sacrificing people’s lives for native vegetation and biofuels is holy.

On the other hand, there is NOT religiosity in the skepticism of those who ask for evidence and reason that does not consist of the appeal to absent authority, affirmation of groupthink, assuming what is in issue, and faith in vested interests that you have given in reply!

As to the physical science, I challenge you to provide a single peer-reviewed paper showing real-world incontrovertible evidence of temperature measurements (not surrogate measurements) proving the existence of a supposed tropospheric hot spot, on which the entire hoo-haa depends.

Whereas my allegations of religiosity are well-founded, yours are a mere back-bite; an unjust projection back onto skeptics of the criticisms they have justly made of warmists.

You have been COMPLETELY UNABLE to defend your own argument, and have only proved every point of my original post.

And this moral and intellectual mendacity is what we find EVERY SINGLE TIME the arrogant warmist assertions are chased down to evidence or reason.

im with what peter said
we have been sold a new end time delusion..[religeon]
based on origonal sin..and inherant guilt...that govt accepts
so as to moove in with a big new tax..before the mug punters[tax payers]..got a change to wake up

i knew it would only be a matter of time
till capitalists/money changers..expolited religios guilt
..upon the gullible

but here..in aj's own words
first quoting ]eter

""<<It's got to be catastrophic,
because that's..what it's been sold as,
not merely moderate.""

no reply
""And you've got to be able to say
...*what reason there is to think policy..can improve the situation""

none provided

""and how the relevant values are identified and worked out.>>""..

aj's reply
a clever trick re rememberd
in lue of fact...!

""This question reminds me of a debate
i once saw between a creationist and an atheist,""

where the creationist asked the atheist
how they thought the universe came about,..then quickly added,
“But you can’t say you don’t know”,""'

to wit...FACT
but he didnt understand...*science
thus gave a non science replIE

""the atheist then replied
with exactly the same question..I’ll ask you now…""

i not a reply
[spin]

""Why?""

i will say
why is not even..attempting a reply

revealing he has a belief system
[athiestic anti belief system of beliefs]
but no facts...[no bible]..to quote as their basis of believing

wonder who said
""Is this just an attempt at bait-and-switch?""

because i think...[*OPINION}..
aj's reply is both

ahhhh-men
the high/priests of gloabal destruction
..now got names..

instead we got interferance running
from the likes as al'gore..little timmy...an aj