biffvernon

One aspect of the 'debate' is that maybe we are not trying to get someone to change their mind - that's a lost cause - but rather, we're trying to influennce the unseen audience who has not yet made up it's mind. Thus: A> Pig's fly. B> Rubbish. A> Pig's fly. B> You pigflyist, you. A> Pig's fly, see http/blahblah.ed B> Pig's don't fly, that isn't a peer reviewed journal. A> Pig's fly according to observations by Prof Avianpig phd. A> Prof Avianpig phd bought his phd on the net and believes in alian abduction. The idea is that the audience gets the message that the pig flyist camp is peopled by pretend scientists who are evil nutters intent on destroying the planet and poor misguided souls who have been led astray.

The problem remains, when you see someone who you believe to be endangering the very survival of humankind on the planet by the ideas they are trying spread, how do you tell them politely?

Paul, I don't think you should worry overmuch. You post a sticky 'Here be Dragons' warning at the top and then take a very light touch, allowing us to use all the sophisticated arguement and manners found in a pub on a Friday night. Those who don't like it, or more likely are bored with it, can go elsewhere so their complaints should not be taken too seriously. There will always be lurkers who don't contribute, and importantly, lurkers who really don't know much about the issues yet. For their benefit it is important that rubbish is countered and contradicted. That isn't about changing people's minds (some are a lost cause) but guiding opinions for those who have none. There is a place for moderation - I knew of one US based climate site that was ruined by a handful of people who flooded the board with nonsense when the mods stayed asleep. But that hasn't happened here and although we have a few posters here who persistently post rubbish, at least it is quite challenging rubbish that makes one think about how it is to be countered, that process honing the arguements in a useful way. Keep up the good work, Paul et. al..

No we don't all agree. The end-Permian was a warming event. 95% of all fossil forming lifeforms became extinct. The more recent ice ages are not associated with mass extinction. Nearer to home the current warming means that my grandchildren will not inherit my house as it will be under the sea. That will also be a problem for all the millions of people and several of the world's largest cities that are near near sea level. Governments have a duty to address that issue and the most cost effective way will be to stop producing CO2 by burning fossil fuels.

That's a relief.

Did you get as far as Gavin's conclusion?

Maybe you should read about the bucket problem: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...kets-and-blogs/

Note: that's intelligence not intelligent. http://www.afio.com/index.html More seriously, Gavin Schmidt has posted an article about the Nature paper by Domingues et al on sea temperatures. I hope the usual suspects will bring themselves to read it, even though it appears on RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...tent-revisions/

The last sentence:- "The planet's oceans store more than 90 percent of the heat in the Earth's climate system and act as a temporary buffer against the effects of climate change." is a reminder for those who get excited about a percieved lack of warming in the atmosphere recently. The heat is going down deep but has to come back eventually.

Eh-up! Has somebody deleted my last post?

The trouble is the stakes are so high. It's not the sort of issue that 'agree to disagree' is a good strategy. We are talking about the survival of the human species. We know that our actions are risking that survival. We have known it for a long time. There are still people who, despite the results of the greatest endeavour in the history of science, still insist on deniying the truth. It is very difficult to walk the narrow path between keeping on the right side of the moderators of this forum and calling some of the posters what we think of them. We're not saying that we're definately doomed, just that if there is just a 1% chance of disaster then action must be taken and never mind toes that get trodden on.

Look folks, the New Ice Age is here. The blue line has gone above the green dashy one. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png The deniers are proved right.

Whoops, the blue line seems to have crossed the green dotty line. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png

[pedant] But Madagascar and Zanzibar have very different histories. It's a geography thing.[/pedant]

The word may be derived from the same root but that does not mean that it means the same. Science is not the same as knowledge, though science may lead us to knowledge. In the case under discussion, the process of science has led us to the knowledge that the phenomenon of AGW is real, not imaginary.