Global Not-warming-as-much-as-they-say

[Mr Sleet]

Completely untrue. Latest levels are higher than at any time in the previous 650,000 years of measurable levels. In fact the current rate passing 400 ppm is twice as high as at any other time.

All indicators point conclusively to AGW - and the rate is now so dramatic and sharp that even alarmists of a few years ago are looking like moderates today.

Only non-scientists argue against human affected Global Warming these days. Of 928 peer reviewed papers in scientific journals over the last decade not one argued against AGW, in contrast to 55% that did in the popular press. The sceptic argument is put out by the energy lobbies and has no basis in fact. Graphs such as the one BF put up are entirely spurious - they are based on zero scientific measurement.

There is no debate.

Response censored by Mr Sleet. Don't want to get banned.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[parmenides3]

Results are from HadCm3. HADGEM1 reduces the affects of CO2 as a percentage , but it will not be untill HADGEM2 that the carbon nitrogen cycle and atmospheric chemistry will be included.

Hadley Center Climate modelling

UKCA

Useful link to UKCA; thanks. Couldn't get the Hadley one up, though B) . I really don't know if I'm allowed to post the links, but I have been reading the Stone et.al. papers for AR4 (2006); detection and attribution studies using GCM ensembles. The four prominent forcings there are: CO2, Volcanicity, Solar Forcing and Sulphate/aerosol forcings. The study finds attribution at the 90% confidence level across all the GCMs which use all the forcings mentioned. And, though other components are not included, we are talking about hundreds of model runs, on a dozen or so models. CO2 still comes out as the principle forcing mechanism of SAT increase to 2100.

There are other papers which discuss similar questions, but, by and large, they come to the same broad conclusion, that whilst other forcings (stratospheric, land-use change, etc.) have an impact, they are substantially less than the warming which can be attributed to CO2. Though there is clearly plenty of work to be done on this area, I find the conclusions reasonably compelling.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Time to invoke Godwin's Law, methinks

:o B)

[West is Best]

Time to invoke Godwin's Law

I'm not sure you've got the point. First, though, internet fora do allow for free speech well beyond the legal confines of printed press. By their very nature it is possible to stretch the boundaries of what are normally debated. It is a paradox of democracy that in order to protect freedom you have to restrict freedom: at the fringes. We do not allow routine discussion, for example, of the following:

- Jews should burn in hell

- it's fine to have sex with my sheep

- all black people are violent

- it's ok for a man to have sex with a 6 year old

etc. etc. In other words, some subjects cross a divide of what is permissable even under free speech. And quite right too.

However, this wasn't the point being made. The invocation of Hitler in this topic was nothing to do with Godwin's law. Hitler wasn't invoked for the reason you suggest, so I think at best you have failed to read it correctly, at worst you are being deliberately disengenous. Gore raised the Hitler analogy for a very different reason. He compared the situation on climate to the political map of Europe in the 1930's in which, if you know your history, Churchill was a lone voice warning about the dangers of the rise of National Socialism. Few listened, at first. But eventually more and more people came on board and realised the awful truth, a truth that was 'inconvenient'. That's the analogy to Climate Change - it began with some lone scientists but there is now a groundswell of opinion. It's in that sense that the time for debate is over, just as the time for parley with Hitler was over in 1939. We have a planet to save, not a sceptic fringe to pacify.

Edited October 5, 2006 by West is Best

[parmenides3]

I'm not sure you've got the point. First, though, internet fora do allow for free speech well beyond the legal confines of printed press. By their very nature it is possible to stretch the boundaries of what are normally debated. It is a paradox of democracy that in order to protect freedom you have to restrict freedom: at the fringes. We do not allow routine discussion, for example, of the following:

- Jews should burn in hell

- it's fine to have sex with my sheep

- all black people are violent

- it's ok for a man to have sex with a 6 year old

etc. etc. In other words, some subjects cross a divide of what is permissable even under free speech. And quite right too.

However, this wasn't the point being made. The invocation of Hitler in this topic was nothing to do with Godwin's law. Hitler wasn't invoked for the reason you suggest, so I think at best you have failed to read it correctly, at worst you are being deliberately disengenous. Gore raised the Hitler analogy for a very different reason. He compared the situation on climate to the political map of Europe in the 1930's in which, if you know your history, Churchill was a lone voice warning about the dangers of the rise of National Socialism. Few listened, at first. But eventually more and more people came on board and realised the awful truth, a truth that was 'inconvenient'. That's the analogy to Climate Change - it began with some lone scientists but there is now a groundswell of opinion. It's in that sense that the time for debate is over, just as the time for parley with Hitler was over in 1939. We have a planet to save, not a sceptic fringe to pacify.

In spite of your explanation, which shows why you made the reference, Wilson's invocation of 'Godwin's Law' is still relevant; by using this analogy, Gore is implying that the people who stand in the way of climate change action are as bad (evil), in their way, as Hitler was. he doesn't need the analogy, and it may be relevant to some of the corporate hard-core anti-action politicos in the US, but it certainly doesn't apply to everyone who still questions AGW, whether they are right or wrong. This is a 'loaded' metaphor, however well or badly it describes the current CC situation, and should best be avoided.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

I think at best you have failed to read it correctly, at worst you are being deliberately disengenous. Gore raised the Hitler analogy for a very different reason. He compared the situation on climate to the political map of Europe in the 1930's in which, if you know your history, Churchill was a lone voice warning about the dangers of the rise of National Socialism. Few listened, at first. But eventually more and more people came on board and realised the awful truth, a truth that was 'inconvenient'. That's the analogy to Climate Change

The point is that an analogy to Hitler was used in order to provoke an emotional point of view. There are other analogies (which are far less obvious, so I presume you'd have to be a little better informed, Mr Gore) such as America's 'invention' of eugenics that would be much more pertinent as at least it relates to a scientific discipline What does the rise of nationalistic socialism have to do with the dissemination of science and it's widescale adoption?

As for being unable to read, or being deliberately disingenuos . . .

Edited October 5, 2006 by Wilson

[West is Best]

In spite of your explanation, which shows why you made the reference, Wilson's invocation of 'Godwin's Law' is still relevant; by using this analogy, Gore is implying that the people who stand in the way of climate change action are as bad (evil), in their way, as Hitler was. he doesn't need the analogy, and it may be relevant to some of the corporate hard-core anti-action politicos in the US, but it certainly doesn't apply to everyone who still questions AGW, whether they are right or wrong. This is a 'loaded' metaphor, however well or badly it describes the current CC situation, and should best be avoided.

:)P

It is a loaded metaphor I agree, but I'm not sure you are right exactly. The analogy was invoked not so much because of the evil at the end of the 30's but because so many people turned a blind eye to what was happening until it was too late. It's more about failing to face up to an inconvenient truth. As someone who studied the 1930's I find that very appropriate. Following the horrow of WW1 people just did not want to listen to someone telling them we were heading for another catastrophe.

As it happens I think the invocation of Hitler is too weak, not too strong. The culling of humankind, innocent humankind, resulting from accelerated AGW is going to be far more severe than even the horrors of WW2. I'm thinking of the millions who will die from flooding, quite apart from other metereological phenomena. And it's surely every bit as morally damming if it's us, largely in the industrial west, who have contributed to it? More insidious maybe, less definable, but also more severe.