I really do not understand this. You are essentially saying you are ignoring half of what he has said.
Unless you can account for the whole then you will never make a reasonable argument that explains the whole. Frankly, you've built a enormous, tottering rhetorical structure on the basis of one remark made in the midst of adhoc special pleading.
Incorrect - because you go on to say exactly the same thing:
I say
1. he supports "green", and
2. "green" for any other purpose than mitigation, is also mitigation
Well firstly: No. Saying "I support moving to green technologies" is basically a meaningless motherhood statement. What is the timeframe? Are they technologies that actually reduce CO2 emissions or other technologies altogether?
And over and above that we have the earlier comment saying that mitigation is unnecessary.
A player who scores an Own Goal can't actually be described as a member of the other team. He is just inadvertantly contributing. He doesn't SUPPORT the other team in any logical, reasonable sense of the word.
But that does not mean I say anything about his motivation for saying he supports "green". Because I don't know, I don't care, it is irrelevant.
Funny - because you just spent the last week or so arguing about his/her motivation. I remind you of what you said earlier:
But the GP isn't saying do no mitigation. In fact saying the opposite.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconcious support, not neutral, positive support).
In addition I see that you readily accept that his motivation for saying "I support a move to green technologies" is not for the purposes of mitigating the effects of climate change. This alone falsifies your central premise (that I somehow misinterpreted his position).
I'm more confident than ever that I read these statements correctly the first time.
This has nothing to do with Chris Monkton or Anthony Watts.
The OP alleged that the IPCC was getting paid to lie: Someone is getting their pockets lined. This is politics Al Gore style. He invited comparison with the high priests of denialism, I brought it.
Don't like it? Tell your boy not to bring it. I can't help noticing that you chose not to berate the OP.
There are people here who are posting opinions and facts here. You did not respond to the opinions and facts posted here. Instead, you avoided what was posted here and made personal attacks against people who are not here and who cannot respond.
For whatever reason you think that attacking the character of the members of the IPCC is fair game and "on topic" but comparisons to the behaviour of the PR companies that are paid to oppose the IPCC is verboten. What nonsense.
You give the impression of someone flailing around trying to find an argument.
As I indicated, his statements are contradictory - I notice that you don't offer any kind of explanation that better suits the available evidence. Besides that, there are plenty of people who support moving to alternative energy sources for reasons other than mitigating against the effects of climate change. I'm not convinced my interpretation was incorrect.
No, I just made this [slashdot.org] post which you misinterpreted(1).
I didn't misinterpret it, or twist it. Read my response again.
You said "The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.", which is stupid because it was in a context which was not opposing mitigation in any way or form. Instead it was advocating mitigation, though in imperfect words.
The imperfect words in question being this statement:
These changes [migrations due to food necessities] happen over centuries. Yes we move / replace infrastructure all the time.
This statement was made in reply to my comments suggesting that in fact, forced migrations of the sort that we can expect to happen to vulnerable people who suffer from food shortages (a problem exacerbated by climate change) is simply not comparable to the western experience of emigration by choice.
There is no way a reasonable person, in that context, would take his comment as advocating for mitigation in order to avoid or minimise adaption. He is asserting that adaptation is easy, thus implying that mitigation is unnecessary.
I didn't say that. I support moving to green technologies now. But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place {1}. The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid {2}. People are going to move farms rather than starve billions. Also if you are going to do the price comparison you need to look at NPV. If you assume something like 5% real growth doing something 300 years from now is effectively 2.2m times cheaper than incurring that same expense today. Even if you assume only 2% you are still at 380x.{3} Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.{4}
{1} special pleading
{2} strawman (the IPCC does NOT "assume no adaption")
{3} Magical thinking
{4} Argument from ignorance
When asked to reconcile his statements in the latter post with earlier comments he was unable to do so, and went away rather than admit error.
Thats all there is to it. Possibly, you read his later remark and didn't immediately see the context from the earlier discussion. A forgiveable error, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.
1) Misinterpreted means twisted to mean any general agreement with the poster of the GP of that post that applies AFTER that post of mine. That is the real demonstration of strawman by you. I never said I agree with that poster in whatever he says in the future. I have had many disagreements with him in the past, which is an irrelevant fact but probably will help you given you misinterpret simple statements.
The reason I said "So to be clear, you now say you disagree with the OP?" Is to highlight to YOU that he had explicitly said that migration was easy (and mitigation therefore unnecessary) and that the two halves of his assertions were not only unproven but incompatible.
It is also unfortunate, while we are discussing this, that you chose the strawman argument, which is the least likely of the two to represent his genuine view, and then chose a burden of proof fallacy, instead of explaining (in detail) why future climate shifts won't lead to suffering for the worlds vulnerable people (as predicted in AR4/AR5 and other IPCC materials).
This is just your own post in which you speculate about what position I personally might hold. Your argument is not with me, but with the IPCC report. Remarks speculating on the veracity of my own views (whatever they may be) get you nowhere nearer your aim of debunking the IPCC report.
I'm well aware that you are frantically trying to burn a strawman but I have to tell you that logical fallacy is of no interest to me.
Attempts to reframe my skepticism as an assertion will fail.
The OP made the assertion that we can amortise the cost of mass migraiton to the polar regions by handwaves about GDP and specualting that we could do it over 300 years, and when questioned about why we would do this instead of mitigating climate change he could not answer.
You claim to support this position:
1. Do you in fact, support this position, or do you favour mitigation instead?
2. If you support this position (that forced migration and resettlement is preferred to mitigation), then defned it. WHY is this the preferred approach? Is it cheaper? Does it result in less malnutrition?
You think Chris Monkton and Anthony Watts are "random" people?
These people make their money by scamming it from gullible people - directly, in the case of Monkton, and somewhat indirectly, in the case of Watts, who, as noted, receives a stipend from the Heartland institute to reframe fact into falsehood.
it was 50% sarcasm. But seriously. Read the papers, not the web sites, not the press releases, not the political reports. But the actual papers these scientists are prepared to put in ink and have peer reviewed. The picture is quite different from the consensus "internet" view of AGW.
Why assume things about what I have read? Your beef is with AR5 and supplementary papers of the IPCC - not with me. If you think there is a problem with this material, describe in detail what the problems are.
Why would the decreased availability of food not exacerbate the pre-existing issue of malnutrition?
Most important point I want to make is that the misery [that the IPCC] predict[s] may not NECESSARILY come to pass.
So we should just carry on and what, hope that nobody goes hungry? Assume that nobody is hungry?
It seems to me that you've defined an outcome which you think is a possibility but are deliberately steering away from giving us any value by which we might judge the likelihood of this possibility that the IPCC's predictions may not come to pass. jbolden (as above) was prepared to describe it as a certainty: In a world where everyone's income is 380x higher than today (i.e. even 2% growth) food prices wouldn't matter much. The raw price of growing food even for very poor people would be a minor expense. .
It really is time you started filling in the gaps here. Where are they (the IPCC) wrong? What factor did they not take into account when considering the effects of climate change on the worlds most vulnerable people?
No, I agree with jbolden's posts that are ancestor to this post. That does NOT include "a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury", nor "don't do mitigation of CO2 emissions".
Is see. So you agree with some irrelevant, non-specific thing the OP posted, but disagree with the OP's central argument (which we have been discussing for several days now). The relevant "magical thinking" section being:
[ myself for context ]
If it becomes, on average, more difficult to farm, prices for food will go up -> more people starve. It's a simple but brutal model.
[OP]
I don't think that's true. Take the current USA standard of living. If raw commodity food prices were to double there would be little to no change in caloric intake in the USA. Food as a percentage of income has been falling rapidly, which has induced shifts to more meat and even still its falling off. In a world where everyone's income is 380x higher than today (i.e. even 2% growth) food prices wouldn't matter much. The raw price of growing food even for very poor people would be a minor expense. Transportation and distribution might account for close to 100% of the food costs.
Magical thinking. But I think we've established that that you disagree with this childish fantasy, you've denied it enough times (if in a somewhat oblique fashion), we'll assume that unlike the OP, you aren't prepared to handwave the central concern of how vulnerable people in the least developed nations will earn enough money for food in the future when (a) they don't at the moment and (b) in the future they need to compete for food with western nations who can no longer feed themselves (c) they have to buy food shipped (hopefully) frozen from Siberia where the growing season is 2 months instead of 6, and corruption is rife, as opposed to now when they buy it off a local supplier at local prices.
It does include that this is false - "if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place". I agree this is false as jbolden claimed.
Very well. Of course if you want to assert that a decreased supply of food will not lead to food safety issues, contrary to what we currently observe, contrary to what the IPCC has modelled, contrary to what intuition and logic tells us, you will need to justify this position:
Why would the decreased availability of food not exacerbate the pre-existing issue of malnutrition?
So, if I understand you correctly, your beef with the science is it's explanatory power. You want us to believe it must be a lie because it's predictions turn out to be correct.
when the IPCC says that we are going to have food shortages, water shortages, and security issues because of AGW, they are trying to scare people. When they say "It's the darkest yet," they are engaging in judgement, not science.
Once again, where is your evidence that the IPCC, on whose judgement you notably rely, is trying to scare people?
And if you agree with their results, as you have stated here, does this mean you, yourself, are also trying to scare people?
So your explanation is that you made various counterintuitive claims that weren't backed up with a shred of evidence, and were then embarrassed by it?
I am trying to determine if you are one of the people who doesn't understand which parts of AGW are settled and which parts are not. It seems like not, in which case, the only conversation we can have is me teaching you.
If so, then your methodology, (which basically, involves making spurious claims and being schooled yourself), is quite unusual. Perchance, is the school your intend to teach me at a clown school? Hmm?
Anyway - teach away: Teacher. Let's start with a review of "Lesson 1" - http://slashdot.org/comments.p....
Here. you tell us that "many" scientists accept the consensus view that a "runaway" greenhouse effect on the scale of the climate on Venus is impossible on Earth. This is true, climate sensitivity to decreases logarithmically as the concentration of CO2 increases, such that the vast quantities of CO2 needed for a Venus like climate are impossible to achieve here, we don't have enough carbon dioxide on the planet. This is the consensus view, as stated by the IPCC, and it's contributors (mann et al).
In other words, you know this because the science told you. The same science that informed the IPCC AR4/AR5 reports.
Then you go on to accuse the IPCC of exaggerating the scale of climate effects:
The approach of the IPCC is to take the worst scenario that hasn't been conclusively rejected by the scientific community, and promoting that scenario most prominently, which is why we you see it being presented with judgement words, like "darkest yet." Their goal seems to be to make it look as dark, which is obviously not a good scientific approach.
You recall saying that, right? You also notice (look closely) that the only example you posed is the one you admit that the IPCC was right - climate sensitivity to CO2 decreases as a function of CO2 concentration. You CLAIM that the IPCC has exaggerated, but only provided evidence to the contrary!
It's clowns all the way down around here. It really is.
He also imagines a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury
I don't see how it is "magically" from his posts, but yes richness and luxury isn't ruled out.
Oh, good for you, deliberately misrepresenting what I said, and burning a strawman. Note the use of the word all. Your argument assumes that in the future everybody will be rich and therefore nobody will suffer from hunger or food safety issues. This is naive, magical thinking.
Why would it be?
Don't attempt a burden of proof fallacy. It's not up to me to disprove magical thinking.
Once again, you've engaged in a "wall of text", if you have nothing relevant to say on the topic at hand (which to be clear, is the behaviour and motivation of Monkton and Watts) then say nothing.
Thanks for your attempted Wall of text fallacy. It failed. Now back to the topic at hand:
And if you want to dispute the observations of Arrhenius et al, and claim that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2), then it's up to YOU to provide the proof -with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and then your frustrations will be over. Simply saying " climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2)" does not shift the burden of proof onto someone else, anymore than saying "There are fairies in my garden" is proof that there are, in fact, fairies in your garden.
Have you proof of your assertion that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2)?
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you can account for the whole then you will never make a reasonable argument that explains the whole. Frankly, you've built a enormous, tottering rhetorical structure on the basis of one remark made in the midst of adhoc special pleading.
At least for 2 of his posts that are ancestor to this post.
Which is tacit admission that his remarks are contradictory. Do you acknowledge this contradiction?
Can you provide a better explanation than I have provided concerning this contradiction?
Congratulations, your fallacy is false cause.
Incorrect - because you go on to say exactly the same thing:
I say
1. he supports "green", and
2. "green" for any other purpose than mitigation, is also mitigation
Well firstly: No. Saying "I support moving to green technologies" is basically a meaningless motherhood statement. What is the timeframe? Are they technologies that actually reduce CO2 emissions or other technologies altogether?
And over and above that we have the earlier comment saying that mitigation is unnecessary.
A player who scores an Own Goal can't actually be described as a member of the other team. He is just inadvertantly contributing. He doesn't SUPPORT the other team in any logical, reasonable sense of the word.
But that does not mean I say anything about his motivation for saying he supports "green". Because I don't know, I don't care, it is irrelevant.
Funny - because you just spent the last week or so arguing about his/her motivation. I remind you of what you said earlier:
But the GP isn't saying do no mitigation. In fact saying the opposite.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconcious support, not neutral, positive support).
I'm more confident than ever that I read these statements correctly the first time.
You don't deny that this statement and the later one are contradictory.
You can't reasonably explain this contradiction.
You can't explain why I should have accepted the later one as truth given the context and concentration of fallacy in the text itself.
What are you trying to achieve here? What would you consider success as an outcome of this conversation?
This has nothing to do with Chris Monkton or Anthony Watts.
The OP alleged that the IPCC was getting paid to lie: Someone is getting their pockets lined. This is politics Al Gore style. He invited comparison with the high priests of denialism, I brought it.
Don't like it? Tell your boy not to bring it. I can't help noticing that you chose not to berate the OP.
There are people here who are posting opinions and facts here. You did not respond to the opinions and facts posted here. Instead, you avoided what was posted here and made personal attacks against people who are not here and who cannot respond.
You live in some bizarre opposite world to reality. Here is the post I responded to: http://slashdot.org/comments.p....
For whatever reason you think that attacking the character of the members of the IPCC is fair game and "on topic" but comparisons to the behaviour of the PR companies that are paid to oppose the IPCC is verboten. What nonsense.
You give the impression of someone flailing around trying to find an argument.
As I indicated, his statements are contradictory - I notice that you don't offer any kind of explanation that better suits the available evidence. Besides that, there are plenty of people who support moving to alternative energy sources for reasons other than mitigating against the effects of climate change. I'm not convinced my interpretation was incorrect.
No, I just made this [slashdot.org] post which you misinterpreted(1).
I didn't misinterpret it, or twist it. Read my response again.
You said "The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.", which is stupid because it was in a context which was not opposing mitigation in any way or form. Instead it was advocating mitigation, though in imperfect words.
The imperfect words in question being this statement:
These changes [migrations due to food necessities] happen over centuries. Yes we move / replace infrastructure all the time.
This statement was made in reply to my comments suggesting that in fact, forced migrations of the sort that we can expect to happen to vulnerable people who suffer from food shortages (a problem exacerbated by climate change) is simply not comparable to the western experience of emigration by choice.
There is no way a reasonable person, in that context, would take his comment as advocating for mitigation in order to avoid or minimise adaption. He is asserting that adaptation is easy, thus implying that mitigation is unnecessary.
When backed into a corner he shifted tack and chose a moving goalposts fallacy. Thus, this post. I'll highlight the fallacies in this post:
I didn't say that. I support moving to green technologies now. But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place {1}. The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid {2}. People are going to move farms rather than starve billions. Also if you are going to do the price comparison you need to look at NPV. If you assume something like 5% real growth doing something 300 years from now is effectively 2.2m times cheaper than incurring that same expense today. Even if you assume only 2% you are still at 380x.{3} Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.{4}
{1} special pleading
{2} strawman (the IPCC does NOT "assume no adaption")
{3} Magical thinking
{4} Argument from ignorance
When asked to reconcile his statements in the latter post with earlier comments he was unable to do so, and went away rather than admit error.
Thats all there is to it. Possibly, you read his later remark and didn't immediately see the context from the earlier discussion. A forgiveable error, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.
1) Misinterpreted means twisted to mean any general agreement with the poster of the GP of that post that applies AFTER that post of mine. That is the real demonstration of strawman by you. I never said I agree with that poster in whatever he says in the future. I have had many disagreements with him in the past, which is an irrelevant fact but probably will help you given you misinterpret simple statements.
The reason I said "So to be clear, you now say you disagree with the OP?" Is to highlight to YOU that he had explicitly said that migration was easy (and mitigation therefore unnecessary) and that the two halves of his assertions were not only unproven but incompatible.
It is also unfortunate, while we are discussing this, that you chose the strawman argument, which is the least likely of the two to represent his genuine view, and then chose a burden of proof fallacy, instead of explaining (in detail) why future climate shifts won't lead to suffering for the worlds vulnerable people (as predicted in AR4/AR5 and other IPCC materials).
Not just me, YOU have hope. See http://slashdot.org/comments.p....
This is just your own post in which you speculate about what position I personally might hold. Your argument is not with me, but with the IPCC report. Remarks speculating on the veracity of my own views (whatever they may be) get you nowhere nearer your aim of debunking the IPCC report.
I'm well aware that you are frantically trying to burn a strawman but I have to tell you that logical fallacy is of no interest to me.
Attempts to reframe my skepticism as an assertion will fail.
The OP made the assertion that we can amortise the cost of mass migraiton to the polar regions by handwaves about GDP and specualting that we could do it over 300 years, and when questioned about why we would do this instead of mitigating climate change he could not answer.
You claim to support this position:
1. Do you in fact, support this position, or do you favour mitigation instead?
2. If you support this position (that forced migration and resettlement is preferred to mitigation), then defned it. WHY is this the preferred approach? Is it cheaper? Does it result in less malnutrition?
These people make their money by scamming it from gullible people - directly, in the case of Monkton, and somewhat indirectly, in the case of Watts, who, as noted, receives a stipend from the Heartland institute to reframe fact into falsehood.
In what sense is this normal behaviour?
it was 50% sarcasm. But seriously. Read the papers, not the web sites, not the press releases, not the political reports. But the actual papers these scientists are prepared to put in ink and have peer reviewed. The picture is quite different from the consensus "internet" view of AGW.
Why assume things about what I have read? Your beef is with AR5 and supplementary papers of the IPCC - not with me. If you think there is a problem with this material, describe in detail what the problems are.
Why would the decreased availability of food not exacerbate the pre-existing issue of malnutrition?
Most important point I want to make is that the misery [that the IPCC] predict[s] may not NECESSARILY come to pass.
So we should just carry on and what, hope that nobody goes hungry? Assume that nobody is hungry?
It seems to me that you've defined an outcome which you think is a possibility but are deliberately steering away from giving us any value by which we might judge the likelihood of this possibility that the IPCC's predictions may not come to pass. jbolden (as above) was prepared to describe it as a certainty: In a world where everyone's income is 380x higher than today (i.e. even 2% growth) food prices wouldn't matter much. The raw price of growing food even for very poor people would be a minor expense. .
It really is time you started filling in the gaps here. Where are they (the IPCC) wrong? What factor did they not take into account when considering the effects of climate change on the worlds most vulnerable people?
No, I agree with jbolden's posts that are ancestor to this post. That does NOT include "a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury", nor "don't do mitigation of CO2 emissions".
Is see. So you agree with some irrelevant, non-specific thing the OP posted, but disagree with the OP's central argument (which we have been discussing for several days now). The relevant "magical thinking" section being:
[ myself for context ]
If it becomes, on average, more difficult to farm, prices for food will go up -> more people starve. It's a simple but brutal model.
[OP]
I don't think that's true. Take the current USA standard of living. If raw commodity food prices were to double there would be little to no change in caloric intake in the USA. Food as a percentage of income has been falling rapidly, which has induced shifts to more meat and even still its falling off. In a world where everyone's income is 380x higher than today (i.e. even 2% growth) food prices wouldn't matter much. The raw price of growing food even for very poor people would be a minor expense. Transportation and distribution might account for close to 100% of the food costs.
Magical thinking. But I think we've established that that you disagree with this childish fantasy, you've denied it enough times (if in a somewhat oblique fashion), we'll assume that unlike the OP, you aren't prepared to handwave the central concern of how vulnerable people in the least developed nations will earn enough money for food in the future when (a) they don't at the moment and (b) in the future they need to compete for food with western nations who can no longer feed themselves (c) they have to buy food shipped (hopefully) frozen from Siberia where the growing season is 2 months instead of 6, and corruption is rife, as opposed to now when they buy it off a local supplier at local prices.
It does include that this is false - "if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place". I agree this is false as jbolden claimed.
Very well. Of course if you want to assert that a decreased supply of food will not lead to food safety issues, contrary to what we currently observe, contrary to what the IPCC has modelled, contrary to what intuition and logic tells us, you will need to justify this position:
Why would the decreased availability of food not exacerbate the pre-existing issue of malnutrition?
I see.
No, I just said it's not ruled out, not it necessarily will be.
So to be clear, you now say you disagree with the OP?
when the IPCC says that we are going to have food shortages, water shortages, and security issues because of AGW, they are trying to scare people. When they say "It's the darkest yet," they are engaging in judgement, not science.
Once again, where is your evidence that the IPCC, on whose judgement you notably rely, is trying to scare people?
And if you agree with their results, as you have stated here, does this mean you, yourself, are also trying to scare people?
So your explanation is that you made various counterintuitive claims that weren't backed up with a shred of evidence, and were then embarrassed by it?
I am trying to determine if you are one of the people who doesn't understand which parts of AGW are settled and which parts are not. It seems like not, in which case, the only conversation we can have is me teaching you.
If so, then your methodology, (which basically, involves making spurious claims and being schooled yourself), is quite unusual. Perchance, is the school your intend to teach me at a clown school? Hmm? Anyway - teach away: Teacher. Let's start with a review of "Lesson 1" - http://slashdot.org/comments.p....
Here. you tell us that "many" scientists accept the consensus view that a "runaway" greenhouse effect on the scale of the climate on Venus is impossible on Earth. This is true, climate sensitivity to decreases logarithmically as the concentration of CO2 increases, such that the vast quantities of CO2 needed for a Venus like climate are impossible to achieve here, we don't have enough carbon dioxide on the planet. This is the consensus view, as stated by the IPCC, and it's contributors (mann et al).
In other words, you know this because the science told you. The same science that informed the IPCC AR4/AR5 reports.
Then you go on to accuse the IPCC of exaggerating the scale of climate effects: The approach of the IPCC is to take the worst scenario that hasn't been conclusively rejected by the scientific community, and promoting that scenario most prominently, which is why we you see it being presented with judgement words, like "darkest yet." Their goal seems to be to make it look as dark, which is obviously not a good scientific approach.
You recall saying that, right? You also notice (look closely) that the only example you posed is the one you admit that the IPCC was right - climate sensitivity to CO2 decreases as a function of CO2 concentration. You CLAIM that the IPCC has exaggerated, but only provided evidence to the contrary!
It's clowns all the way down around here. It really is.
So teach on, oh great sensei!
Thanks, once again, for your 'wall of text' fallacy. Please insert coins to play again.
He also imagines a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury
I don't see how it is "magically" from his posts, but yes richness and luxury isn't ruled out.
Oh, good for you, deliberately misrepresenting what I said, and burning a strawman. Note the use of the word all. Your argument assumes that in the future everybody will be rich and therefore nobody will suffer from hunger or food safety issues. This is naive, magical thinking.
Why would it be?
Don't attempt a burden of proof fallacy. It's not up to me to disprove magical thinking.
Fantasy stories are not my domain I'm afraid
Neither is reading comprehension, I see.
Oh, the irony. It burns us.
Anyway I don't play Monopoly any more. There was, shall we say, an incident.
Once again, you've engaged in a "wall of text", if you have nothing relevant to say on the topic at hand (which to be clear, is the behaviour and motivation of Monkton and Watts) then say nothing.
And if you want to dispute the observations of Arrhenius et al, and claim that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2), then it's up to YOU to provide the proof -with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and then your frustrations will be over. Simply saying " climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2)" does not shift the burden of proof onto someone else, anymore than saying "There are fairies in my garden" is proof that there are, in fact, fairies in your garden.
Have you proof of your assertion that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2)?
Post that proof.
He also imagines a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury. Fantasy stories are not my domain I'm afraid.
That's an unnatural reading of your original text. Why would I have concluded that that is what you were saying?
I don't get it, perhaps you can explain further.