1. I agree with you. Sort of. If warming continues at this rate we may be at a climate like the last time we were this warm – the pliocene where equatorial temperatures were … uh, well … about the same as they are now.

2. Anthropogenic causes may in fact be the primary cause of climate change, but most of it is not from increasing CO2.

3. We don’t know that it will be a problem, however we should probably increase research to find out. We’re in the elementary school phase of deciphering climate. Remember Manhattan? (and not the one in New York) It’s called for now, in my opinion. Much cheaper than some of the other (economy choking) alternatives…

A question for you though. Do you really think an 80 foot difference in sea level would not have a significant effect on regional climates?

Here are were the consensus end from what I read:
1-)The planet has warmed by 0.6°C: Rapidly? Unprecedented ?this is yet to be settled.
2-)Humans are contributing: Although attribution is yet to be settled. Attribution is not required for us to adapt.
3-)CO2 is rising and now stand at about 380ppmv. The level of the forcing has yet to be settle.

I have some questions although they may be off topics: (if they you can email me)

Are oil industries dumb enough to not research for ways to either reduce the CO2 emission (either by better efficiency or by capturing it) or even to invest in alternate energies like wind power or solar power or anything else?

From what I understand of the AGW community all the focus of policy makers should be towards reducing CO2 emission. I also understand that even if we could cut all CO2 emission the earth would still warm, so we would certainly not put an end to catastrophic events like hurricanes, flood, drought or anything else. Understanding that aren’t better to research greener technologies so they would get cheaper than oil and adapt to these events so they wouldn’t cause as much damage, instead of only focusing on CO2 as it seems to be the case?

This is clearly false. The most important policy-related question is, “If governments don’t do anything, what will be the future CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, methane atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases?”

Those questions are clearly not settled. The simple fact is that the IPCC has *never* made any scientifically valid predictions for any of those parameters, and likely never will.

Clearly such a statement requires context, as it can not truly mean “everything”. I don’t yet know what I will have for lunch today, so there is the single counter example to falsify a literal interpretation.

I think it is pretty clear that this does not even mean everything in climate science is settled, that is only slightly less of a ridiculous interpretation. It only means that the central questions of this debate, the ones that relate most directly to wise policy decisions, are settled. That is: the planet is warming rapidly; the primary causes are anthropogenic; if the warming continues at this rate it represents a serious problem.

One of the latest contrarian talking points is demolishing this strawman interpretation that “everything” is settled with points like we don’t know exactly how much or how fast sea levels will rise.

The same thing applies to “consensus”. It is a very broad consensus on a very focus set of points, those I listed above.

That I know of, neither of these scientists, Roger Pielke sr, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Will Gray, Steve McIntyre, etc, have anything to do with oil industry. They believe for the most part in AGW.

If the science is settle, and if GCM’s are performing so well, as some people say, shouldn’t we stop or reduce the funding of climate research so we could start to work on the problem.

What is strange is that these people who says, that everything is settle and that they know what will happen, will also say that more money is needed into researching/predicting climate because we don’t know enough about it.

This is a most disturbing statement coming from a leading authority on anthroprogenic climate change. While editorialists have been making similar,totally unfounded claims for over a decade, a scientist should know better. Such a remark indicates that Hansen is either loosing his cool, loosing the debate or both.

Mann refused this week to testify before the Barton committee as his hockey-stick was the subject of the hearing . He had the unique opportunity to defend his thesis.

And now Hansen.

Maybe this is additional stuff for an additionel analysis by Prof. Wegmann