Lead pencils, that is one way of knowing someone reads this stuff. Doomsday utterances, in other words you are not sure. No doubt the people who get paid to think have come up with some beauties. You can't burn oil without getting soot. Stick your finger up a exhaust pipe on a diesel and you will see soot. Get on the solar and do away with power bills. Concentrate some sunshine to boil water and use it in a heating coil in the winter , and save a stack on gas. That is not a doomsday utterance, that is common sense.

What a facile contribution to the climate debate.

Donna Lambroise's contribution did nothing to assess the scientific basis for AGW. Al Gore used biblical references as a metaphor for change not as a indication of his belief structure.
There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality of the greenhouse effect. There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Relevant studies of climate sensitivity predict a variation in temperature of over 2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.

Facts people, the scientific facts, not some psoedo-scientific claptrap proselytised by the denialist lobbies.

AGW is a religion; it's almost identical nature with the Eden myth has been noted; its other religious qualities are manifest and have been recognised judicially:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dismissed-employee-agrees-settlement-in-green-case-1949594.html

Gore is a leading priest of this religion and it is his belief structure not a metaphor that he talks about. Like all religions it is based on faith not science but is prepared to mix and match its beliefs and science in a confusing and dishonest way; so when sillyfilly says:

"There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality of the greenhouse effect. There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Relevant studies of climate sensitivity predict a variation in temperature of over 2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2."

There is a little bit of truth but much untruth here; there is a Greenhouse and CO2 is a Greenhouse gas; BUT there is no knowledge of the extent the Greenhouse effect has had on climate in the last century and the role of CO2 is increasingly seen as a minor player if one at all.

As for statements and predictions about climate sensitivity, how much the climate and in particular the temperature will increase in response to human CO2 emissions, none of the official IPCC predictions have been verified and increasingly resemble the worst of religious predictions of apocalypse. Perhaps the most succinct expose of the scientific failure of climate sensitivity from ACO2 is by that heroic layman Lord Monckton;

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-ipcc-exaggerate-monckton-calculates-how-much

CLIMATE ASTROLOGY

AGW alarmists and astrologers have much in common. The similarities between their divinatory systems are striking. Both (i) exploit public anxiety about weather and climate; (ii) have their high priests and sacred texts; (iii) derive authority from models that few understand (and even fewer audit); (iv) claim these models have genuine predictive power, despite the lack of any empirically verifiable laws of climate change; (v) make ominous predictions; (vi) urge governments and individuals to take immediate action to avoid destruction, generally on date more than two parliamentary terms away; (vii) confuse consequence with cause and causation with correlation; (vi) gain financially from their prognostications; and (vii) sometimes crown kings and disrupt kingdoms.

Most astrologers knew they walked a tightrope between success and failure. Hence they tended to claim their predictions, while ‘likely’, were not inevitable. If wrong, they could concede there had been a mistake in the calculations. Perhaps Mars moved house while the astrologer was taking snuff or at the alehouse?

They also explained away the terrifying prospect that humankind was hostage to random natural events that defied rational explanation or prediction. “There is no such thing as chance in Nature”, declared Elizabethan astrologer John Butler in his 1680 treatise, The Most Sacred and Divine Science of Astrology". Astrological hypotheses, like global warming ‘story-lines’, seemed to explain everything, at least for a while.

Like the exceedingly religious, climate alarmists have been - and continue to be - less eager to admit any uncertainties. Perhaps the risk of puncturing their carefully cultivated mystique of infallibility is too high? The best ‘predictions’ are always those in the distant future. Any apparent ‘cooling’ somewhere on the planet, is invariably deemed ‘consistent with a long-term warming trend’. Weather can become ‘climate’ too, if it confirms an alarmist trajectory. Some “see patterns” in EWE frequency and link them to climate change; others see only randomness and natural variability.

Alice (in Warmerland)

Sillyfilly, whilst you're talking about "some psuedo-scientific claptrap", try some of these scientific facts.

Svante Arrhenius in 1896 first came up with this interesting phenomena of hot-house theory and the CO2 relationship. In 1906 he figured that a doubling of CO2 would cause a 5 to 6 degree C increase in earth surface temperature. There was some dispute about his number-crunching at the time and although dismissing the criticism he later revised his figures (for a doubling of CO2) downwards to 1.6 degrees C. All a bit rubbery really, but we can forgive him for being new to the concept.

The IPCC in their 2007 report, over a century later, declare climate sensitivity, as it is now called, for a doubling of CO2, is "likely" to be in the order of about 2 to 4.5 degrees C. That's a pretty big variation. I wouldn't call that a scientific fact. More like a non-scientific wild stab in the dark. It's definitely not scientific certainty, that's for sure. So much for your scientific facts. And we can't forgive them for being new to the concept.

Now, I see that you've decided to settle on 2 degrees C as your opinion of climate sensitivity, quoting a not specified source as "relevant studies". I guess the science is settled for you then. Better send a peer reviewed paper to the IPCC and advise them of your opinion.

But, don't you think that there might be some room for reasonable doubt here, that these scientists don't really know what the facts are yet? Don't you think there's a good reason not to be turning the entire world's power/economy structures upside-down for something that seems like a very big guess?

Anyway, I'm pleased that you're happy with your quoted 2 degrees. But for me, I'd like to see some real facts, the scientific facts, not some pseudo-scientific claptrap proselytised by the warmist/alarmist lobby flying under the flag of the UN/EU.

The main fact warmers fail to report about Arrhenius was that he thought warming of the planet, if it did occur, would only be a good thing because it would lead to an increase in crop production.

Arrhenius then would disagree with the AGW movement on a fundamental issue. AGW proponents unsurpisingly fail to report the whole story,yet again.