PS: as plantagenet mentions sea-level rising (not that I believe that to be the worst aspect of AGW) please see http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

You will note that where glaciers melt there is an uplift of land causing an effective lowering of sea-level. Maybe a canal development will yet find itself high and dry rather than sinking like a Pacific island.

The climate is off the agenda. I read the mainstream media in Europe and for years they were not allow to write anything against the warmistas views, but that has clearly changed since a few months.

Though there are some rearguard battles. The German Spiegel published an article last week saying it will not get as warm as expected (and disappointed the people in Germany desperately waiting for if not global warming but just a little local warming after a very cold winter which stretched into spring an now a freezing early summer). That article was online for two days, then it got censored.
And the German environment authority (Bundesumweltamt) has published a paper stating very clearly which opinions about GW are acceptable and which are not.
Governments telling us what to think leads to dictatorship.

Luciferase,

Not making much sense are you?

<< the IPCC and the greater scientific community is already well aware of what you call pseudo-science but what is actually cold (pardon that), hard, scientific fact >>.

You may be right but I’m not a climate scientist so I can’t help you. I can however base my view of your science on the response it is getting from those who do understand it.

This includes all those nations and all their experts that refused to save Kyoto, the global renewable industry that has now collapsed, the last bastion of CAGW, the EU and the emissions trading markets that have also collapsed.

That’s how good your science is, it has knocked them all over. Whoopee!

Poirot,

<< I understand that you have no interest in putting the fossil fuel vs renewable subsidies into context >>.

What?

I just posted press releases, I didn’t write them Poirot. Why should I have to explain someone else’s press releases?

If your story and your science are so good they would hold up globally wouldn’t they? Don’t blame me because you were sold a yarn. I didn’t dismantle your little CAGW world, the people who sold you your pseudo-science did.

Why is it now everyone else’s fault Poirot?

Look Poirot, you have allowed this passion to consume you for a long time, I also understand that it’s demise has left you with a void, but by trying to deny this reality you are going to make yourself ill. Just find a replacement alarm to promote and move on.

Try peak oil, peak population, peak food production or peak something to frighten yourself with.

spindoc,

"You may be right but I'm not a climate scientist so I can' help you. I can however base my view on your science on the response it is getting from those who do understand it."

Says it all really.

However, the reality is that you base your view on those who choose to ignore it in favour of "short-term" imperatives, which, of course, is a typically human trait.

Far from being "consumed", spindoc, I'm more fascinated and amused by the hordes of no-science flunkies who flood the blogs with their cackling denial.

It's more like a game of whack-a-mole to me.

renysol,

Regarding your studious reading of an article in Spiegel.

Here's an article that may clear things up a bit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate?CMP=twt_gu

(Yes, I know, JKJ, that it's a Guardian article...but it's written by one of the authors of the paper renysol refers to which was published in the journal Nature Geoscience, from whence erupted a great flow of denialist "told-you-so's")

Of course, reading Myles Allen's article would disabuse deniers of any particular solid footing to their latest nah-nah-nah's, but I thought I'd post it anyway for the edification of the few regular's on OLO who may be interested.

Surely you don't need a science degree to understand that changing the composition of the atmosphere is going to change the climate. Alas it seems that such a simple concept is to much for a number of people on this thread.
Here is short list of what we have done so far:-

1 We have added a number of man made gases to the atmosphere such as fluorocarbons thus damaging the ozone layer and altering the way energy is absorbed high in the atmosphere.

2 We have added vast amounts of aerosols to the atmosphere altering both the optical proprieties of the atmosphere and indirectly the amount of cloud cover and intensity of rainfall.

3 We have increased by about 40% the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere thus reducing the rate at which the surface cools by interfering with the energy flows in the atmosphere.

4 We are responsible for a doubling of the amount of methane in the atmosphere again a gas which interferes with the flow of energy through the atmosphere.

5 We have increased the level of nitrous oxides and other volatile organic compounds leading to photochemical smog and further monkeying around with energy flows in the atmosphere.

Now some of these changes lead to warming and some to cooling, the main players being CO2 for warming and aerosols for cooling. If at some point in the future we decide to stop treating the atmosphere as a garbage dump, the levels of aerosols will fall rapidly, but the levels of Co2 will take hundreds or even thousands of years to come back to something like the levels of last million years or so.

It should be clear from the above that measuring the increase in global temperature, is not going to be in exact proportion to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact it leads to the conclusion that aerosols are shielding us from even higher temperatures. The more we damage the environment the more costly and difficult it will be to fix in the future.