And I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Again, look up the passenger pigeon. Further to that, look how much mass we move (more than geology does), look how much energy we consume, how much of the fresh water we control. Our influnece is vast - but I do agree if you don't see that you'll not see the problem...

I can accept that.

Mind you, we control very little of anything in the big picture of things other than things we think we can control.

IE:The climate of a planet.We might have influenced it a tad over the years here and there like other animals but we will never control it.

I think there lies the Hoax.

As for the rest ,we can make a difference.

Yup! we'll never 'control' climate (as mother N. does) but we do impact upon it.

We're not the only organism to have wrought changes on our planet.......check out who gave us this much oxygen......

CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

I would be happy to blame CO2 for climate change but show me the proof.Not some jumped up theory supported by selected ipcc scientists.Let's not beat around the bush ,they are employed.

This whole farce thing is driven by money imho.(THE COLLAPSE OF THE CARBON MARKET IS IT'S DEATH KNELL)and before anybody starts???,my opinion is my own, I am not watts or iceage influenced or biased towards warmists or coolist blog sites

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

btw. Gray. (Hope you and your crew are well)

Aim, you are entitled to your opinion.

I do think people using words like hoax leaves others with that classic dilemma - respond in kind or let the slurr (because to people like me it IS a slurr (be it your opinion or not)) to call what I know to be true a hoax. CO2 is (that's IS) a ghg with a well known and understood effect. You might as well call the water vapour effect a hoax. Is that proof enough? No I don't think it is, and tbph, I can't see there is anything that might sway a view of the GH effect like yours.

Anyway, I ask you, what should I do? Respond in kind or let the slurr pass? Put my opinion as forcefuly as you do? Sometimes I do, but I'd rather debate without the emotion, rhetoric and invective - honest

I do know that the science wont change your mind (for the reasons you've given) but can you at least stop using such languge towards other people's views? You are one (I know the others who definitely wont) here who might respond to such a request

Please.

I worry less and less about sharing my 'understandings' with others these days. I think we are finding ourselves in a 'Win,Win' situation where the folk who call 'Hoax' won't find themselves taxed for it and those who see it occurring will get their 'definitive' climate event that will bring home the clear and present danger we live with.

Cancun will bring more promises but no 'agreements' that will be acted upon.China will continue to grow ,along with all the developing nations , and CO2 will track well ahead of the TAR4 Worse case scenario plot.

The 'naysayers' have won and will bring us to the next stage in AGW......it will be a joy to see such massed 'back-peddling' once the climate catastrophe is upon us and folk ask 'why' we didn't act to offset it's worse impacts.

"We thought it was a Hoax" they'll say.........Ho Hum

Well if it's a hoax, the perpetrator is long in his grave!  Unless of course it's a conspiracy like the Da Vinci Code with thousands and thousands of people involved over the past 2 centuries?  But in that case, why? 

An article in Aftenposten today shows that a new study amongst Norwegians points to a major downturn in public belief about AGW. The figures show 51% believe people are having an impact on climate and the other 49% do not subsribe to that notion.

The article says that the figure was previously much higher in favour of AGW but recent years has seen support for the IPCC and AGW steeply fall.

It isn't a case of this year's cold autumn and winter having an influence because the study was made over several months from back in the summer.

The AGW lobby did clearly state that snow and cold would almost become a thing of the past. These claims should never have been passed as they were based on limited facts and knowledge. Bad move.... for the AGW lobby that is....

Yes.  Because everyone wants everyone else to act, but for themselves not to need to, or to have to do less.

It's like a bunch of kids watching a girl drown because they all know that as soon as one of them dives into the river to save her, the others will all pinch his marbles ......

(not that I think curbing CO2 emissions is our first priority when it comes to climate change - we might be better letting the girl drown and instead act to prevent anyone else falling in)

Hi AIMSIR, I trust you are well - and still have some snow lying?

I am surprised by the comment I have highlighted?  Do you really believe this to be the case?  My understanding is that the IPCC took climate science research from all those involved in the subject around the world.  Nobody 'works' for the IPCC.

Do you not think that we need to somehow distil out the true science from the political froth which has somehow enveloped it?  You have a point that it has turned into something about money and economics - but is that not merely a reflection of how out socio-economic-political model works?

Surely you could apply the same comments to, for example:

• Attempts to protect endangered species (i.e. it's all about money, because that's what's required to provide the resources needed for parks and protection), or
• Providing drinking water in the third world (i.e. it's all about money to provide the people and the technology), or
• Eradicating specific diseases (i.e. it's all about money to provide the resources, chemicals, medicines, education etc)

If my point is well made then the fact that dealing with AGW ends up being about allocation of resources (money) and making policy choices is just an inevitable path that has to be followed?

What distinguishes AGW from the other threats I have given as examples is that AGW is not accepted universally as a threat that has to be tackled.  The question is 'why not' - and the answer is because the cost is both great and requires a massive transfer of resources between countries, threatening continued improvements in living standards in the nations that would be required to give (up) something.

We both agree that AGW is not the only issue confronting mankind but I disagree fundamentally with the notion that because some view it as not the most important that it can be ignored.  If a patient is admitted to hospital with multiple aliments the doctors don't just deal with one....  That risks the death of the patient..... hint.....

And that's one of the main reasons politicans don't want to act

And they are perfectly correct.  That may indeed happen eventually if warming continues as predicted.

The problem is that the science says it may happen in 100 years time if this, that and the other happen.  The media report it will happen.  With no caveats or explanation or timescale.   The public believe whatever the media feed them.....

I've just noticed that what AIMSIR actually said was

Well yes, maybe you could call that a hoax.

It is certainly not the main climate driver.  

However, it is one of the factors that are currently changing whilst the main drivers remain constant or within normal short term natural variations. 

Will it have any effect?   Can you really be sure it will not?