Originally posted by Richard Barrett
View Post
My position on the snow losses of Kilimanjaro are that have been analysed in the scientific journals - peer-review to boot - and have been attributed variously to climate change and tree felling. I might add that elsewhere the snow loss has also been attributed to ablation.
My position on CO2 cannot be construed as you describe it. I have referenced the IPCC TAR reports and pointed out "Leaks of TAR5 indicate that once again climate sensitivity will be reduced, perhaps as low as 1.7 C for a doubling of CO2 - a far cry from the days of 6 C." Strangely you have made no use of the IPCC reports to counter my points.
I have said nothing whatsoever about mitigation policies other than (elsewhere, but current threads) that (a) the present options on renewable energy technology all fail miserably on levels of production, reliability, compliance with usual grid practises, and cost; therefore they should be sent back to the lab. for development, diverting the present subsidies to support that work and (b) since hydro power is well established, is very reliable, has a huge production lifetime, is cost effective in the long run and therefore we should consider the Severn Barrage. Given point (a) it seems fruitless to continue with the blind hope of installing more and more of our present renewable dross in the hope that it might just cut our emissions.
Comment