Convincing Arguments for global warmng

Here’s a tiny bit of a ‘ripper’ from JoNova. (google it)

I concede the globe warmed approximately 1 degree Celsius over the course of the 20th century, but I have my doubts about the other nine Tenets.  But if you are a devout believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and want to convert me to your religion then I’m going to tell you how you can do it.

The fourteen easy steps
Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
Step 4 – Stop the hate.
Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
Step 6 – Answer questions.
Step 7 - Stop enjoying catastrophes.
Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
Step 11 – Stop lying.  If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?
----------------------------------------------------

I have adhered to scientific principles my entire life, and resent the implication that my personal scepticism against “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” is based on anything other than the complete lack of persuasive evidence that the hypothesis, as proposed, exists.

Until such time as some evidence that is objective, convincing and at least has a semblance of empiricism is available, then the null hypothesis of natural climate change stands. That is all a true scientist would expect, so those opposed to that opinion need to provide unadulterated and unexpurgated evidence to justify their assertions.

It especially behoves those making the most outrageous claims to provide a level of evidence that is commensurate with the social disruption they advocate as necessary. In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

Winston (Reply)
Wed 01 Oct 14 (09:57am)