Cohenite
There is a huge deference between burning fossil fuel and breathing, we exhale water vapour and co2, but burning fossil fuels produces large amounts of pollutants from heavy metals, numerous carcinogens, acid producing gases, small amounts of radioactive active chemicals, and lung damaging particulates which all end up in the air or the water. Comparisons between breathing and burning fossil fuels are totally inappropriate.

Altering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will and does affect climate, because it alters the way heat escapes from the surface. Further to that we have the problem that CO2 combines with water to produce a weak acid in the oceans unfortunately this is starting to interfere with the ability of marine creatures to produce shells.

http://www.princeton.edu/grandchallenges/energy/research-highlights/ocean-acidification

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/haiyan-northwestern-pacific-ocean/

"Super-typhoon Haiyan, equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane on the U.S. Saffir-Simpson scale, struck the central Philippines municipality of Guiuan at the southern tip of the province of Eastern Samar early Friday morning at 20:45 UTC (4:45 am local time). NASA's TRMM satellite captured visible, microwave and infrared data on the storm.

Haiyan made landfall as an extremely powerful super typhoon, perhaps the strongest ever recorded at landfall, with sustained winds estimated at 195 mph (315 kph) by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Previously, Hurricane Camille, which struck the northern Gulf Coast in 1969, held the record with 190 mph sustained winds at landfall. After striking Samar, Haiyan quickly crossed Leyte Gulf and the island of Leyte as it cut through the central Philippines."

LEGO,

I wouldn't dream of interrupting more than I just have.

With WUWT, Andrew Bolt and John Howard being bandied around as some sort of guide to climate science...well.....

Poirot, it is no surprise that 'fake sceptics' shoot from the hip at anything that moves - just to confirm their own bias.

It's pathetic that these 'fake sceptics' (including the editor of this site) will 'down-play' the tragedy and intensity of this typhoon.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that these 'fake sceptics' will now accuse the World Meteorological Organisation, the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, NASA, etc. of partaking in a global conspiracy to upgrade the severity and intensity of the typhoon.

Despite commentary from experts like Brian McNoldy, a Senior Research Associate at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida, who noted that on the morning (EST) of Nov. 7;

"Haiyan has achieved tropical cyclone perfection. It is now estimated at 165kts (190mph), with an 8.0 on the Dvorak scale... the highest possible value."

ozdoc,

Yes....

Here's a post from Greg Laden on November 9 says it better than I could:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/11/09/wuwt-science-denialist-blog-hits-new-historic-low/

"At this moment, there is a guest post over at WUWT blog downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects, and even the death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan. Even as the monster storm steams across the sea to it’s next landfall (probably as a huge wet tropical storm, in northern Vietnam and southern China), Anthony Watts and his crew are trying to pretend this monster storm didn’t happen, and instead, that it was a run of the mill typhoon.

At the moment, nobody is really saying that Haiyan’s strength, size, power, or even existence is specifically the direct result of global warming, although it is of course impossible to remove the effects of global warming from ANY weather event because global warming is part of climate change and guess what … weather arises from the climate. The climate has changed, so ALL of our weather is affected by climate change.

This offensive post is preemptive denial, but it is denial that throws the lives and suffering of millions of people … of which thousands have lost relatives … under the bus. So that Anthony Watts and his guest poster Paul Homewood can … can do what? Feel smart? Take a shot at the reality of climate change? Pretend severe weather does not matter?...."

the faithful gw alarmist still comforting each other with their articles of faith. The article is that we as humans are arrogant enough to think that we can control the weather. We read of a flood a long time back where people where just as arrogant and ignorant.

Ozdoc

As bad as the "fake sceptics" are, the CLIMATE CELEBRITY CIRCUIT (CCC) does more damage. People like Flannery, Gore, Suzuki and the idiot crown prince of England poison the well with the exaggerated claims, weasel words and self-righteousness. I'm with Howard on that. With friends like that climate scientists don't need enemies.

And don't get me started on the Greens! With their my way or the highway fervour they're the closest approximation there is to the Tea Party Republicans.

You cannot prove or disprove global warming from single events. It's as much cherry-picking or shooting from the hip as Andrew Bolt, WUWT and some of the more ferocious posters here.

But you raise an interesting question about our editor.

Graham, you're a journalist. While the basic fact of AGW is about as far beyond doubt as it is possible to get, there are still interesting questions to explore. Here are some.

--What is the time table? How long have we got? Does the recent discovery that excess heat is being buried down to a depth of 2,000 metres give us more time?

--Is some global warming and some extra CO2 in the atmosphere actually good for us? See:

"Why climate change is good for the world" in the Spectator:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

I happen to think that Ridley and Tol are wrong because I don’t think they've priced risk. But at least they're not trying to deny some pretty basic and well established laws of physics.

--Maybe this also gives us more time.

"Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming"
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/%E2%80%98stadium-waves%E2%80%99-could-explain-lull-global-warming

Above all, Graham, you're a journalist. Why don't you speak to actual climate scientists? Why don't you phone up the Royal Society and ask them why they're calling for a reduction in emissions in spite of all the "elegant" disproofs (so-called)in junk websites like WUWT?

As it happens I have regular correspondence with actual scientists working in the field. Instead of getting your info from junk sites why not try that