quanda

'Despite your shrill to the contrary, science is not a faith based religion. '

No one said it was. Evolution and the warmist doctrines however are very faith based. Your denial does not change that.

runner,

"No one said it was."

And in the very next breath - that's exactly what runner says...as in:

"....Evolution and the warmist doctrines however are very faith based."

How do you work that one out, runner?

Both evolutionary theory and climatology are science based....so your "No one said it was." is a load of old hooey.

"You" are the one saying that the disciplines involved in these two important areas of science are predicated as are faith-based religions....exactly contrary to reality.

That really takes some doing!

Denial-a-palooza!

The below quote is Qanda trying to waffle himself out of a tight situation he waffled himself into:

<< In fact, anyone who knows anything at all about ‘long-lived-greenhouse-gases’ (SPQR obviously doesn’t) they would understand that even if the whole planet (forget about Australia) stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, warming is still going to occur – decades hence. The aim is to adapt to a warmer and wetter world.>>

Hmmmm! if there's one thing we can take away from that it's that the Carbon Tax is --TOTALLY NOT-- about cutting emissions or climate change mitigation!

Except!

When introducing the Clean Energy Bill of 2011, this is what Julia Gillard said:

"Mr Speaker, this House has been debating climate change for decades.

Parliamentary debate of this issue predates this building itself.

My predecessor as Member for Lalor, Barry Jones, once said this about climate change:

If we are only prepared to plan five years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years down the track all the dangers that are feared can be avoided.

Those words were spoken twenty four years ago next week.

We have now had decades of heated public argument and political opinion.

Alongside decades of enlightened scientific research and economic analysis.

After all those opinions have been expressed, most Australians now agree:

our climate is changing

this is caused by carbon pollution

this has harmful effects on our environment and on the economy

and the Government should act

And after all that analysis has been done, most economists and experts also now agree the best way is to make polluters pay by putting a price on carbon

So that is the policy of the Government I lead.

And that is the plan which is before the House now…

A plan to cut carbon pollution by at least 160 million tonnes a year in 2020…"

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/clean-energy-bill-2011-gillards-speech-20110913-1wp4r.html

Hmmmm!

So either Julia belongs to the group Qanta categorizes as knowing nothing about ‘long-lived-greenhouse-gases’!
Or, Qanda belongs to the group of naives who knows next to nothing about the politics of the cause he aids and abets!
My moneys on the latter!

Poirot,

Definition of ESCHATOLOGY
1
: a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind
2
: a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment

When we talk about AGW "believers" we're not talking about scientists, we're talking about those people whose lives are so sad and empty that they have made a faith out of the science, few of them can understand a scientific report so they need their High Priests to interpret it for them.
There's a term which some people use to describe the modern Western faith, "Holocaustianity", it's narrative begins in the fiery furnaces of Auschwitz and looks ahead to the end of all things as the seas rise and the earth bakes in a coffin of atmospheric pollution.
As in all faiths one is a believer or a denier, a believer in "Holocaustianity" has faith in the scientific underpinnings of the ordeal by fire of 1941-44 just as they have faith in the scientific basis of the coming end times and like all dogmas the underlying science is not to be questioned or revised, it's literally written in stone like Moses' biblical tablets.
Contradictions don't matter to believers, it doesn't matter if there's no scientific proof only that the science makes sense.
I often make the observation that Science Fiction fans are far more critical of implausible science in their favourite genre than a reader of climate change literature would be. If a science fiction writer pushes his scenarios just a bit too far he'll get torrents of emails and derisive Tweets from his own devoted fans, AGW believers just accept whatever they're told.

Jay,

You guys are most entertaining...really....it's gymnastics beyond the call of denialist duty.

What a load of bunkum.

(And it's a shame about "those people whose lives are so sad and empty" that they seek to encompass debate within the confines of their own vacuity)

As if scientists aren't always questioning and testing hypotheses. they are the "real skeptics" - not a bunch a of no knowledge conspiracy theorists and big business men who don't wish to see their cash cows shut down.

Whadaya reckon - should I take my guidance on climate from people who actually understand how it works - or from lay people who seem to have a fetish for likening rational thought to religious faith? Should I take my guidance from the presentation of empirical evidence - or should I listen to the Jays and runners of this world?

I'll take my guidance from the people who actually know what they're talking about. Remember, the denialist argument isn't predicated on the science - it's based on conspiracy and fraud and a whole lot of funded amateurs who contort themselves every which way to "avoid" the science.

(P.S. congrats on using runner's line "High Priests".....but that line is becoming a little worn and wan. It's about time you fellas lifted your game, I reckon:)

Poirot.
I'm not saying that "deniers" aren't a cult as well, I just didn't include it in that post, "Climate Deniers" see the end of all things coming in the form of the one world government and their supposed depopulation agenda. It's all the same stuff, "deniers" like the followers of Alex Jones for example start at the same point as the believers, the atrocities of 1941-44 and project a future where the only people left alive after the "prophecy"(the agenda) has been fulfilled are the "Elites" (God's Elect).
This is a doctrinal dispute between two sects of "Holocaustianity", they both begin with the sacrifice consumed by fire, the prophecy fulfilled and the post Armageddon reign of the elect, the differences are about as meaningful and have the same practical effect as the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox schism.