Farage Murdoch Gove Boris

[french frank]

Do you accept such statements without thinking? Presumably you might have seen some of the recent data on the subject, read the assessment papers, overheard some of the scandals revealed in the climate science arena and perhaps concluded that just possibly all was not well in the climate science world?

You presume correctly - I have seen them. But this was a joint 'statement' from a number of people with good enough credentials. Or do you accept without thinking that anyone claiming that climate change is a significantly manmade occurrence must be a scoundrel (probably seeking to sell us solar panels when they're not pursuing their research in scientific establishments?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

ahinton
Of course the western countries are energy intensive and the developing world isn't. But in terms of CO2 emissions their share is now less than the developing world (esp. India/China) and since WWII they have consistently reduced their emissions of all gaseous pollutants - check Lomborg's Sceptical Environmentalist. And there's yet to be any convincing evidence that electricity production using renewables (apart from hydro power, which the greenies don't like) reduces emissions since they all require backup for their variability and intermittancy and that can only come from fossil fuel burning.

As for FF, she said nothing about the state of the world (your strawman), merely that whatever was happening we should do something NOW with no apparent thought as to the significance of the problem, what causes it, and whether any of our mitigation measures might actually work (such as replacing fossil fuel burn with palm oil and wheat based ethanol, thereby laying waste to huge areas of tropical forest and causing food poverty).

[An_Inspector_Calls]

You think Peter Gleick has good credentials . . .?

Seemingly you accept that anyone questioning the scale of cliimate change is a scoundrel.

[Bryn]

You think Peter Gleick has good credentials . . .?

Seemingly you accept that anyone questioning the scale of cliimate change is a scoundrel.

Oh I'd trust Gleick's credentials over those of the Heartland crew any day. Sure he overstepped the mark when trying to expose some of their dealings, but he 'fessed up, and their pathetic attempts at generating a criminal case against him seem pretty much a good way of wasting the money they raise from the numbskulls, ne'er-do-wells and polluters who find them.

[ahinton]

ahinton
Of course the western countries are energy intensive and the developing world isn't. But in terms of CO2 emissions their share is now less than the developing world (esp. India/China) and since WWII they have consistently reduced their emissions of all gaseous pollutants - check Lomborg's Sceptical Environmentalist.

Assuming that, by "they", you mean the (developed) western countries, I don't doubt what you say, but it's hardly surprising that their CO2 emissions are less than those of the "developing" world because their populations are less than those of the developing world, the combined populations of China, India and Africa alone representing around half of the global total; does the amounts of fossil fuels that individual nations are burning per capita per annum matter as much as the effect of them being burnt?

And there's yet to be any convincing evidence that electricity production using renewables (apart from hydro power, which the greenies don't like) reduces emissions since they all require backup for their variability and intermittancy and that can only come from fossil fuel burning.

By this you mean that you either haven't read or have read but nevertheless won't accept such evidence. The extent to which such backup is required will, of course, vary from place to place, but there is no doubt that, in southern Europe, much of Australia and the southern US, the whole of north Africa and the Middle East and most of India would need little such backup had they fully explored and developed storeable solar energy; I'm not suggesting that fossil fuel use can be dispensed with altogether - that would be daft - but a massive dent in it could nevertheless be made, even using current technology - and who's to say that improved collection and storage efficiencies, better insulation and the rest might not enable yet further reductions in fossil fuel use.

There are plenty of other reasons to try to cut back on fossil fuel use, not least political, economic and environmental (by the last of which I refer to issues other than just the possibility of some climate change control).

As for FF, she said nothing about the state of the world (your strawman), merely that whatever was happening we should do something NOW with no apparent thought as to the significance of the problem, what causes it, and whether any of our mitigation measures might actually work (such as replacing fossil fuel burn with palm oil and wheat based ethanol, thereby laying waste to huge areas of tropical forest and causing food poverty).

I am not aware that she did or did not say what you attribute to here here. I agree that wholesale and indiscriminate development and implementation of possible alternative energy sources without good reason and on the back of insufficiently reliable research is not a good idea and I do have grave reservations, for example, about the effectiveness of certain biotechnological solutions including those that you mention as well as about wind farm development except in a handful of places where the prevailing climate might suggest that it could work well; that said, nuclear and solar energy has not been fully explored and implemented and the latter has the advantage over the former of being possible on a very small scale by individuals, SMEs, rural communities and the like.

I am also convinced that, were full advantage to be taken of the possible benefits of replacement of as much of fossil fuel use as possible besides those which are hoped to harness climate change, the ultimate outcome will be welcomed whatever the effect or otherwise upon climate change might turn out to be (but I've said this before).

[french frank]

You think Peter Gleick has good credentials . . .?

Seemingly you accept that anyone questioning the scale of cliimate change is a scoundrel.

Um, there were over 250 signatories to the letter: are you going to question the credentials of each one separately? The blog was posted by Callan Bentley 'an assistant professor of geology at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia'.

In any case, given that your first contribution consisted of a Rah! Rah! Mr Gove and down with the Guardian, I don't think it deserved any sort of rational response at all. I am persuaded that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the man-made climate change view and that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it.

As I am not competent to argue the scientific facts, I do what most other people do: weigh up the credibility of the sources. Geoffrey Lean, environmental correspondent for the Telegaph, seems to have the same benighted view as the Guardian, so I think I'll follow them...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Oh I'd trust Gleick's credentials over those of the Heartland crew any day. Sure he overstepped the mark when trying to expose some of their dealings, but he 'fessed up, and their pathetic attempts at generating a criminal case against him seem pretty much a good way of wasting the money they raise from the numbskulls, ne'er-do-wells and polluters who find them.

But this isn't a Gleick versus Heartland argument.

[ahinton]

Um, there were over 250 signatories to the letter: are you going to question the credentials of each one separately? The blog was posted by Callan Bentley 'an assistant professor of geology at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia'.

In any case, given that your first contribution consisted of a Rah! Rah! Mr Gove and down with the Guardian, I don't think it deserved any sort of rational response at all. I am persuaded that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the man-made climate change view and that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it.

As I am not competent to argue the scientific facts, I do what most other people do: weigh up the credibility of the sources. Geoffrey Lean, environmental correspondent for the Telegaph, seems to have the same benighted view as the Guardian, so I think I'll follow them...

The only problem that I have with the content of the link that you posted is that it doesn't say anything much about what proportion of climate change is even thought to be, let alone can be proved to be, of man-made origin and which naturally occurring, but that's no excuse for ditching the issue and delaying and prevaricating over action. Leaving climate change to one side for a moment, the fact remains that the fuels that we mostly use today, including those used for electricity generation, will inevitably continue to increase in price for a number of reasons and the widespread social and commerical damage that this will do surely needs no explanation. I have yet to read an even remotely convincing reason for doing little or nothing.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Um, there were over 250 signatories to the letter: are you going to question the credentials of each one separately? The blog was posted by Callan Bentley 'an assistant professor of geology at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia'.

No, what I'll do with all such statements is check the content. Which seems to be rather of the type Rah Rah climate change is proven and we must do something - anything.

[ahinton]

But this isn't a Gleick versus Heartland argument.

No, it's a head-in-the-sand versus head-in-its-right-place argument and, given the gravity of its subject, a potentially very dangerous one if all we get is ever more argument and no action on any scale, a point which Richard Barrett hs made powerfully and succinctly and against which there can surely be no rational argument.

[ahinton]

No, what I'll do with all such statements is check the content. Which seems to be rather of the type Rah Rah climate change is proven and we must do something - anything.

I had thought that what is generally understood to define climate change deniers today is the view that there is no climate change of any kind occurring from any source; your "Rah Rah climate change is proven" statement is therefore absurd, since few if any people actually believe that no such change is even occurring, even though there are differences of opinion as to the extent of human involvement and natural causes and the proportion between these.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The extent to which such backup is required will, of course, vary from place to place, but there is no doubt that, in southern Europe, much of Australia and the southern US, the whole of north Africa and the Middle East and most of India would need little such backup had they fully explored and developed storeable solar energy;

This is partly nonesense. Solar power by itself (hugely expensive, of course) cannot generate at night so it needs backup. Your technology adds, in agreement with my point, the backup system of storage (at further huge expense) and I'll assume you're thinking of thermal storage in molten salts rather than pumped storage. So that route (of limited world-wide availability) could be emission-free, but most likely would be uncompetitive with conventional generation. Elsewhere, solar energy is a headache in terms of grid-system management (as is being demonstrated in Germany), and does require fossil-fuel backup.

As for wind generation there are numerous studies, based on historical data not models, showing it does not provide the CO2 cuts stated on the tin. (Bentek, USA; Sharman, Denmark, Wheatley, Ireland; Post, Netherlands).

These are examples of expensive policy changes made without thought.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I had thought that what is generally understood to define climate change deniers today is the view that there is no climate change of any kind occurring, howsoever caused; your "Rah Rah climate change is proven" statement is therefore absurd, since few if any people actually believe that no such change is even occurring!

In that case I know no climate change deniers. Do you?

I think you'll find most climate change sceptics a tad more nuanced than that.

[french frank]

The only problem that I have with the content of the link that you posted is that it doesn't say anything much about what proportion of climate change is even thought to be,

It was an open letter published in the journal Science. It was not itself a scientific paper intended exclusively for a scientific audience.

I'm not sure where the alternative argument is leading: more nuclear power stations?

[MrGongGong]

http://glyndebourne.com/our-wind-turbine-0