Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Max Mosley 2]

The arguments against it? You still don't get it. There is no _need_ for arguments against it. If I claim ghosts exist, I not you have to prove it.

The burden of proof falls on those _proposing_ a theory. You choose to believe GW has been proven on account of a "consensus" of people you claim exist and _apparently_ you deify.

I'm not so much arguing in favour of GW as wanting to get the facts straight: I said at the start I'm more skeptical about GW than most scientists, so I'm hardly forcing a consensus on anyone. But you, Chris and others keep denying or ignoring the fact that the vast majority of experts do genuinely believe in GW. If you want to disagree on the science then we can look into that, but at least be honest and admit that you disagree with the vast majority of scientists.

Thank you for the closing joke. Your expertise of medicine and physics leads you to this conclusion? Is there consensus on this conclusion of yours? Do I need to provide overwhelming evidence to disprove the yet to be proved claim that "physics is much harder to understand than medicine"? My friend, take a deep breath.

I neither agree nor disagree regarding the effect of solar weather on our planet... nor do I feel I have to, why should I? What's wrong with you, maaaan? Interestingly, look how eagerly you attempt to quash any thought whatsoever that deviates from the creed... no room for discussion, eh? Nothing but simple answers for complex problems, funny man. Everything is understood, you've been told by "consensus", every single thing is known.

Sorry if my joke upset you. You academic types take yourselves so seriously. Regarding your other points, I'm not trying to 'quash' dissenting views. I'm simply saying that imho the theory that the sun is responsible for recent climate change doesn't add up. It has been thrown into more and more doubt with every passing paper over the last 10 years or so.

Anyway, I told the annecdote to you so that, once again, you can appreciate the complexity of the subject against the almost fanatical certainity of your assessment of something as large and, again, as complex as an entire planet..

Wouldn't we need to know if the hypothesis holds true? Why jump ahead, buddy? Do you demand surgery with a happy shout without obtaining first a definite diagnosis?

As you know, in science (eg medicine) we rarely 'know' anything. Instead we have to rely on probabilistic arguments. As you know better than I do, if a clinical trial reports that chemotherapy has a significant effect on cancer, that only means it is likely, rather than definitely, effective. There is never any proof. These papers even report the probability that at least as convincing data for efficacy could have been obtained purely by chance from an agent with zero true efficacy, and this probability is often quite large, eg 5%.

In practice you have to make decisions by weighing up probabilities. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a 50/50 chance of imminent catastrophe, then it would be wise to take preventative measures without waiting for more research. Now I agree the odds of imminent catastrophe are much lower than that. But the cost of dealing with significant global warming over the next 50 years can be massively reduced by acting now rather than later, and the odds of significant warming over the next 50 years are surely considerable?

It is the new political correctness. If you dare not to chant in synch, you will be found and eliminated. There is no room for anything than blind support... JOIN THE CONSENSUS OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!

Sounds familiar to me.

Today's medicine is rubbish too, it is not science and when some doctor/scientist try to bring science back to medicine they're lynched.

Yes I agree medicine is quite corrupt. Actually I think it is worse than other areas of science because of all the corporate interests. Nevertheless, medical science is the best option we have to stay healthy.

What I dislike about the pro-GW fraternity is the rabid insistence that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, and here's 10 million URLs to look at. There's no room for sensible debate and has grown almost into an element of political correctness. Post Al Gore it is now accepted as being correct and denyers are treated as heretics.

Well you know how much I dislike PCness. And I'm not calling anyone a heretic. But first let's just get clear that the vast majority of scientists do genuinely believe in GW. I only want to get a simple fact clear but you make it sound like I'm persecuting you all.

Anyone who claims to understand our climate is a fool/liar. We just don't know and don't have enough accurate data/models on which to make any claims. This is my main reason for being anti GW as it is largely a bunch of self-serving, subjective, academics feeding juicy morsels to politicians who don't know better (or do and don't care) and companies that can see another way of making a fast buck.

Perhaps. But again, let's first be clear that that 'bunch of self-serving, subjective academics' includes almost all scientists, every scientific organisation of note, at least 99.9% of all peer-reviewed papers on GW and even about 75% of most alleged deniers!

It is known science accepted by 30,000 scientists against the global warming hoax.

Ah don't be fooled by that Argento. For example fewer than 1/3 of those 'scientists' even had PhDs, never mind any real expertise, even if we take their word for it .

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

...you, Chris and others keep denying or ignoring the fact that the vast majority of experts do genuinely believe in GW. If you want to disagree on the science then we can look into that, but at least be honest and admit that you disagree with the vast majority of scientists.

No Muzza I am not ignoring the fact, I am disputing it:

1) IPCC does not = vast majority of experts

2) Many experts do not speak out for fear of loss of professional credibility/funding

3) More does not always = correct (more usually represents current vogue)

It is a fact that man does not have sufficient, accurate evidence on which to make accurate models of our climate. On that basis alone, the current greenhouse effect based model is at best a semi-proven theory and certainly no basis on which to make serious, global decisions. Add to that Nasa's alleged tweaking of the data and what we have is a bl**dy mess.

I would like to see an objective review with proper debate, realistic projections and more consensus. IPCC set out with the conclusion already known.

Now imagine, for example if we had acted in the 70s on the supposed ice age that was then the thinking - we could have spent 30 years pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm the world up. But even with all the acadeic wisdom then it was wrong. Maybe. So why are we being so arrogant now to say that we know what's going on? Sure, science has moved on but we still don't really understand the climate and there are many, many variables that are not well understand and taken into consideration.

I'll bet you a tenner now Muzza that in 30 years this will be another theory relegated the scientific bin.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the data being used to make these projections is:

• Patchy
  
• Not accurate and in some cases, made up
  
• Being influenced by external sources
  
• Being generated in some cases where data is missing by interpolation (which is subject to error)
  
• Being fiddled with by NASA
  
• Is not global - there are gaping holes in the geographic coverage and historic record
  
• Does not match satellite measurements
  

It is unscientific to take this as being accurate, especially when the supposed rise is very small and is, not could being influenced by the factors above.

I'm simply saying that imho the theory that the sun is responsible for recent climate change doesn't add up. It has been thrown into more and more doubt with every passing paper over the last 10 years or so.

I believe our climate is considerably more complex than being able to explain changes just on the sun, or CO2, for that matter.

As you know, in science (eg medicine) we rarely 'know' anything. Instead we have to rely on probabilistic arguments.

Again, if we had acted upon wisdom in the 70s we would have been working upon a global cooling model. How stupid would we look now? We are now being asked to look forward 100+ years.

But the cost of dealing with significant global warming over the next 50 years can be massively reduced by acting now rather than later, and the odds of significant warming over the next 50 years are surely considerable?

....and the economic/social costs are considerably higher - if the GW activists got their way, economic growth in Asia, South America and Africa would be held back for fear of risking GW. Just think of the human impact in terms of poverty and standard of living.

The other thing that troubles me is that the assumption is that the earth will go to hell if GW occurs. Yet historic evidence has been that in every other warm period, agriculture, health and economies have thrived. Bear in mind also that IPCC selectively took the worst case scenario for their "everyone is going to be underwater" scenario. Smacks more of tabloid journalism than science.

There is also no evidence that the weather would be worse as our weather systems are driven by the difference in temperatures between the poles and the equator. Warmer planet = less difference = less severe weather.

The rampant disease scenario is also nonsense. Malaria, for example does not thrive in warmer rather than colder climates. Indeed, Malaria was first discovered in Lake Malaren in Sweden. Can't remember the figures, but another projection was that GW would significantly cut the death rates by cold each winter, globally (of poor and elderly people), moreso than it would kill through increased heat.

Perhaps. But again, let's first be clear that that 'bunch of self-serving, subjective academics' includes almost all scientists, every scientific organisation of note, at least 99.9% of all peer-reviewed papers on GW and even about 75% of most alleged deniers!

Yep. Humans. Great, aren't they?

[Oli 1]

I'm not going to address the consensus or lack thereof, since Muzza's doing that bit. I've addressed the science earlier in this thread- the various misunderstandings about the "Global Cooling" of the 70s, the link between Global Warming and extreme weather, the danger of picking errors in studies which have subsequently been repeated at least twenty times, satellite data and its analysis etc.

Not only that, but I think the argument has already been lost. Whether or not you think there's some kind of global conspiracy or not, the effect remains that all the major scientific bodies agree on this, thus that's the way the government will act.

At this point the argument I find more interesting is the curious idea that addressing global warming is going to precipitate some kind of economic disaster. Nobody is asking you to give up having babies to save the planet- that's just a ridiculous tabloid scare story from the pages of the Daily Mail. Measures are already being taken to reduce, for example, the amount of CO2 coming from cars in Israel, by building a network of electric car charging stations. Obviously this appeals to Israel given it's relationship with OPEC. The same thing is going to be trialled in Denmark, and Hawaii. Renault/Nissan and possibly Daimler/Chrysler are going to manufacture the cars, which will cost (including power, maintenance etc) approximately one third that of a normal car. All the power used will come from clean energy sources (primarily wind power).

Now this is just an example. But it does illustrate that measures to cut global warming do not necessarily need to be as Draconian as people think. It's merely a process of compromise and small steps.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

That's alright because I won't repeat the inherent errors in the global temperature data, missing elements in the models and the fact that nobody, absolutely nobody really understands how our climate works.

The argument has not been lost, it hasn't even started yet... Anyhoo...we'll all find out in 10 years....

....and there's a problem also with wind power. Not clean - no. Not just because it takes CO2 to make them. Wind power is unpredictable because of the variability of the wind. Any larger scale use of wind power requires back-up power sources to fill in the gaps in provision when the wind is not blowing and the only viable way of doing this is using gas turbine generators. That means with an overall increase of fossil-fuel burning generators = more CO2 (and these will also have to be powered up more often than that to make them financially viable).

You see, this is the problem. Everyone is so focused on one thing they are not thinking of the overall consequences....

[Max Mosley 2]

I'm not going to address the consensus or lack thereof, since Muzza's doing that bit. I've addressed the science earlier in this thread- the various misunderstandings about the "Global Cooling" of the 70s, the link between Global Warming and extreme weather, the danger of picking errors in studies which have subsequently been repeated at least twenty times, satellite data and its analysis etc.

Sounds good to me. It's a very complicated issue and too much to research for an internet debate without some help!

No Muzza I am not ignoring the fact, I am disputing it:

1) IPCC does not = vast majority of experts

2) Many experts do not speak out for fear of loss of professional credibility/funding

3) More does not always = correct (more usually represents current vogue)

It is a fact that man does not have sufficient, accurate evidence on which to make accurate models of our climate. On that basis alone, the current greenhouse effect based model is at best a semi-proven theory and certainly no basis on which to make serious, global decisions. Add to that Nasa's alleged tweaking of the data and what we have is a bl**dy mess.

I would like to see an objective review with proper debate, realistic projections and more consensus. IPCC set out with the conclusion already known.

I'm yet to see any good reason whatsoever to doubt that the vast majority of scientists genuinely believe in GW. Yes, perhaps some experts don't speak out. Yes, the IPCC was imperfect. But there is such overwhelming evidence for a consensus that I really think it would be better for the skeptics to just admit that yes, they are in a small minority. As you rightly say, that doesn't prove them wrong. But as long as they deny such an easily provable fact, their whole case looks unconvincing to me. To repeat:

In a study of 928 peer reviewed articles related to GW, Oreskes found precisely none that contradicted the consensus position. Her report was subjected to intense scrutiny by people like Benny Peiser, but he eventually admitted he was almost completely wrong. Opinion polls amongst scientists routinely indicate a vast majority accept the consensus view. Every major scientific body that I know of accepts the consensus (can you think of one that doesn't yet?). But some of the best evidence comes from the deniers themselves. Just look at the list Spitfire produced and you will quickly see how ridiculous this is: almost all of the 'deniers' he can find actually support GW! A BBC correspondent asked for GW skeptics to write in with stories of how the peer review process had stifled their research. He found virtually no cases at all.

Another article made for entertaining reading. It's by a scientist who suggests there's more pressure on scientists to downplay the threats. Whether or not he's right, it's silly to keep denying that the vast majority of scientists accept GW.

I'll bet you a tenner now Muzza that in 30 years this will be another theory relegated the scientific bin.

You don't need to remind me how sure you are. I already know you're so absolutely convinced that there is no danger whatsoever that you're willing to bet the earth's future on it.

I believe our climate is considerably more complex than being able to explain changes just on the sun, or CO2, for that matter.

I agree. But greenhouse gases likely are playing a significant part in the climate change that is being observed.

....and the economic/social costs are considerably higher - if the GW activists got their way, economic growth in Asia, South America and Africa would be held back for fear of risking GW. Just think of the human impact in terms of poverty and standard of living.

When I said 'costs' I was meaning everything: economic and social etc. Also, I already said that imho poverty is a bigger crisis than GW, so I'm certainly not in favour of holding back development of poor countries. As Oli points out there are modest changes that we can all make that will ensure GW is less severe, without bankrupting ourselves. Me and Oli aren't GW activists and we probably share much of your irritation with their exaggerated prophesying of doom. But you have to bear in mind that the poorest countries will be the ones who will find it hardest to deal with adverse climate change, should it occur.

The other thing that troubles me is that the assumption is that the earth will go to hell if GW occurs. Yet historic evidence has been that in every other warm period, agriculture, health and economies have thrived. Bear in mind also that IPCC selectively took the worst case scenario for their "everyone is going to be underwater" scenario. Smacks more of tabloid journalism than science.

There is also no evidence that the weather would be worse as our weather systems are driven by the difference in temperatures between the poles and the equator. Warmer planet = less difference = less severe weather.

The rampant disease scenario is also nonsense. Malaria, for example does not thrive in warmer rather than colder climates. Indeed, Malaria was first discovered in Lake Malaren in Sweden. Can't remember the figures, but another projection was that GW would significantly cut the death rates by cold each winter, globally (of poor and elderly people), moreso than it would kill through increased heat.

I agree that many of the reports of calamity are exaggerated but climate change would surely cost us, never mind the Bangladeshis, less if we deal with the potential dangers now rather than later.

[Oli 1]

That's alright because I won't repeat the inherent errors in the global temperature data, missing elements in the models and the fact that nobody, absolutely nobody really understands how our climate works.

The argument has not been lost, it hasn't even started yet... Anyhoo...we'll all find out in 10 years....

....and there's a problem also with wind power. Not clean - no. Not just because it takes CO2 to make them. Wind power is unpredictable because of the variability of the wind. Any larger scale use of wind power requires back-up power sources to fill in the gaps in provision when the wind is not blowing and the only viable way of doing this is using gas turbine generators. That means with an overall increase of fossil-fuel burning generators = more CO2 (and these will also have to be powered up more often than that to make them financially viable).

You see, this is the problem. Everyone is so focused on one thing they are not thinking of the overall consequences....

Well, there's a lot of people who would disagree with you there. For a start the CO2 cost to make wind turbines is negligible next to the output of the fossil fuel they displace. The payoff comes after about 9 months of use, a fraction of a turbines expected lifespan.

Wind Power, as with everything else, is a question of scale. Where the wind does not blow in one area, it will in another. Connect 10 windfarms together and you can rely on about 40% of the average output of the turbines as reliable, baseload energy.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-tpo112107.php

Given the vast improvement in output power from a single turbine over the past ten years or so, it starts to look more viable. It's not the complete solution, but it's a significant and inevitable (short of a better source coming along) part of it.

[Max Mosley 2]

Call me stupid but why don't they cover Africa in solar panels and let us buy their energy rather than the Middle East's?

[Oli 1]

Call me stupid but why don't they cover Africa in solar panels and let us buy their energy rather than the Middle East's?

Political instability I'd guess. Shifting the dependence from one set of ruthless dictators to another :-)

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah, probably. And no doubt there are other problems I can't think of.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well, there's a lot of people who would disagree with you there. For a start the CO2 cost to make wind turbines is negligible next to the output of the fossil fuel they displace. The payoff comes after about 9 months of use, a fraction of a turbines expected lifespan.

Wind Power, as with everything else, is a question of scale. Where the wind does not blow in one area, it will in another. Connect 10 windfarms together and you can rely on about 40% of the average output of the turbines as reliable, baseload energy.

And back at you, a report by the Renewable Energy Foundation: http://www.ref.org.uk/PressDetails/139 (these guys should know what they are talking about)....

They concluded that contrary to general belief, it is common for long periods of no or low wind to occur across UK (not just in one region) and even across broader areas of Europe (inc. France and Germany). Therefore standby gas turbines are the only option and would have to be switched on and off, which is not efficient and contributes to CO2 burden.

Quote: John Constable, Director of Policy and Research for REF, said: "Poorly thought-out political enthusiasm for windpower has propelled us towards levels of deployment which are irrational and very expensive; this study is a helpful corrective, and will enable us to plan how to get the best from wind technology at reasonable cost.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Call me stupid

OK, Hello Stupid

[Oli 1]

And back at you, a report by the Renewable Energy Foundation: http://www.ref.org.uk/PressDetails/139 (these guys should know what they are talking about)....

They concluded that contrary to general belief, it is common for long periods of no or low wind to occur across UK (not just in one region) and even across broader areas of Europe (inc. France and Germany). Therefore standby gas turbines are the only option and would have to be switched on and off, which is not efficient and contributes to CO2 burden.

Quote: John Constable, Director of Policy and Research for REF, said: "Poorly thought-out political enthusiasm for windpower has propelled us towards levels of deployment which are irrational and very expensive; this study is a helpful corrective, and will enable us to plan how to get the best from wind technology at reasonable cost.”

So actually, no they are not better and the quote above summarises nicely my thoughts on many things CO2.... I'm all in favour of a scientific approach but the knee-jerk reactions and decisions that are taking place are not good.

Well as the study I placed above shows, to achieve the stated 40% power baseline the wind farms have to be quite far apart. This specific case was for the whole of the US rather than just that of Britain. Think European in scale and the problem goes away.

Nevertheless, I think your reaction is more knee-jerk than mine. All these objections you raise are contingent on an all-or-nothing approach. We can't get all our power from wind, so we shouldn't try and get any. As I have stated, it's merely part of a wider solution. With tidal, wind, solar and traditional energy together on a large enough scale, the shortfall from wind you speak of makes no odds. The difference between you and me is that on reading the study above, I (in common, I suspect, with the authors) think "we're going to have to solve these problems". You just think "it's too hard- we should do nothing".

[spitfire 0]

Hmm. Well, I started out relatively skeptical about climate change but the quality of arguments against it is so poor that I get more convinced each time I read an attack on it. I see Piotr and Spitfire have left, despite Piotr saying it was his favourite subject.

You are a funny guy MW.

Sorry to disappoint but I have not actually left I just had to go back to work, just a little bit of work to help out a research project that is delving into the geological similarities of the east coast of North America, North Central Canada and North-western Europe. Yeh it

[maure 1]

The amusing conclusions so far:

1. It is claimed that the "vast mayority" of scientists agree on something. That the subject involves an entire planet and a G2 class star is inconsequencial as is whether or not humanity has the means to properly assess the matter. This "agreement" is an unparalleled event in history and, regardless on the conclusion, we must all be assimilated.

2. It's been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the activity of the sun has no effect whatsoever on the temperature of Earth. Sure, the sun has a surface temperature of near 6,000 Kelvin and is a sphere of plasma some 400,000 times the mass of Earth (~99% the mass of the entire solar system). That some 4 billion kilograms of matter are converted into energy every second is irrelevant too.

3. Addressing the GW (whatever the vast agreement is not telling us it is) would have no impact on the world's economy and, even if planet haters were to be right, the less prosperous would never be affected. Ever.

- Proposition A: Let's fill Africa with solar panels.

- Proposition B: Let's put windmills everywhere (observation: in Africa, of course, I don't want my property or scenery uglified with those monstrosities)

4. Earth will cool by a fraction of a degree everytime we chant "there is consensus".

- Note to self: Earth should, by now, have the surface temperature of Mars. Since the prediction has failed, let's chant something else but keep blaming human activity, why? Because "there is consensus"... darn it! We need _another_ chant.

5. ...

Conclusion? the GW fright will pass on when it cannot be milked anymore... as have similar fads in the past and will those to come.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well as the study I placed above shows, to achieve the stated 40% power baseline the wind farms have to be quite far apart. This specific case was for the whole of the US rather than just that of Britain. Think European in scale and the problem goes away.

Doh! Oli. As the study I placed shows, placing the wind farms further apart does not help (that's actually the whole point of the study) - they analysed weather and power generation statistics from Germany, Denmark and UK - the distance equivalent of California to Kansas (half way across the USA). They found that a weather system causing no/low winds, affected most of Europe, sometimes for periods of up to 10 days and particularly at peak demand times (Winter). This was not unusual and their conclusion was that this would lead to inefficient use of gas turbines which would constantly have to be cycled up and down.

Oh yes and the UK is the windiest country in Europe....

Nevertheless, I think your reaction is more knee-jerk than mine.

Double doh! I am suggesting a more considered approach to the use of wind power rather than slapping in tons of wind farms. How is that knee jerk?

All these objections you raise are contingent on an all-or-nothing approach. We can't get all our power from wind, so we shouldn't try and get any.

UK Government is setting a target of 25GW of generated power by 2020 (which is a lot). The vast majority of that will be wind based as solar is too expensive/inefficient and wave power has yet to provide workable large scale energy production solutions. That means they also have to have 25GW of fossil-fuel power stations on standby to make up the shortfall.

I also never said don't get any power from wind - I was saying that it is not as simple as it seems and in fact one of the primary aims for using wind may not materialise as it requires the inefficient use of CO2-producing gas turbines to back it up.

As I have stated, it's merely part of a wider solution. With tidal, wind, solar and traditional energy together on a large enough scale, the shortfall from wind you speak of makes no odds. The difference between you and me is that on reading the study above, I (in common, I suspect, with the authors) think "we're going to have to solve these problems". You just think "it's too hard- we should do nothing".

Triple doh! I never said that, don't put words into my mouth!

I just said that it needs further consideration, rather than what is happening, which is a mushrooming of wind farms to meet a Government-set target. Sure we need alternatives, but most are currently too expensive/unreliable/juvenile in their development.

Add to the the Carbon Trust's recent study which discovered that domestic roof-top wind turbines are also net carbon emitters. http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...eWindEnergy.pdf

The fact is that carbon-based power generation is a certainty for some time to come (rightly or wrongly).

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

It's been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the activity of the sun has no effect whatsoever on the temperature of Earth. Sure, the sun has a surface temperature of near 6,000 Kelvin and is a sphere of plasma some 400,000 times the mass of Earth (~99% the mass of the entire solar system). That some 4 billion kilograms of matter are converted into energy every second is irrelevant too.

Indeed, I find it laughable that GW supporters dismiss any impact of the sun on our weather.

Strange considering it is the source of all our heat and drives our weather system.

Of course it has no effect! Good job the sun is constant, eh?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Anyway, bring on melting ice-caps.

I live on a hill currently some miles from the sea and after they have melted I'll end up with a beach-side property

[pabloh20 1]

Anyway, bring on melting ice-caps.

I live on a hill currently some miles from the sea and after they have melted I'll end up with a beach-side property

I just want to be able to take a speedboat to work.

[maure 1]

Indeed, I find it laughable that GW supporters dismiss any impact of the sun on our weather.

Strange considering it is the source of all our heat and drives our weather system.

Of course it has no effect! Good job the sun is constant, eh?

Indeed. The sun burns with perfect regularity, fluctuating _exactly_ so that its energy output accommodates for the varying distance of Earth as it orbits.

Alternatively, the amount of flying GW crap acts as a filter and that is the reason why...

[AleHop 0]

I just want to be able to take a speedboat to work.

Yeah, T-shirts for winter, girls nearly naked and no more heating bills...

[pabloh20 1]

Yeah, T-shirts for winter, girls nearly naked and no more heating bills...

What's with the 'nearly' ???

Anyay, not much chance of that here in the UK. The only thing GW means here is great wetness looking at our current weather.

[Max Mosley 2]

PARTS PER MILLION! 100 parts per million! Nothing I have read has convinced me either.

OK well if everything you read is as well written as your book of deniers-who-actually-support-GW then it's no wonder.

The amusing conclusions so far:

1. It is claimed that the "vast mayority" of scientists agree on something. That the subject involves an entire planet and a G2 class star is inconsequencial as is whether or not humanity has the means to properly assess the matter. This "agreement" is an unparalleled event in history and, regardless on the conclusion, we must all be assimilated.

Dear oh dear Maure. I've learned that most people refuse to ever reassess their views, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against them is. As an academic, I had thought perhaps you might do better. A hush hush, european moment in the woods seems to matter more to you than the overwhelming public evidence that there is a consensus.

2. It's been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the activity of the sun has no effect whatsoever on the temperature of Earth. Sure, the sun has a surface temperature of near 6,000 Kelvin and is a sphere of plasma some 400,000 times the mass of Earth (~99% the mass of the entire solar system). That some 4 billion kilograms of matter are converted into energy every second is irrelevant too.

Feel free to show me the exact mechanism by which the sun is supposed to alter our climate. In the meantime anyone can read a recent paper by one of Spitfire's supposed deniers of climate change, Dr Sami Solanki. He is an expert in solar science, and his paper here states quite clearly that the sun can only be responsible for less than 30% of recent climate change. He considered all the postulated mechanisms by which the sun might possibly affect us, and he says that as CO2 levels rise further the sun will become even less relevant. There are many more papers such as this one, which I will happily provide for your delectation.

The rest of your points are the usual straw man nonsense.

Indeed, I find it laughable that GW supporters dismiss any impact of the sun on our weather.

Strange considering it is the source of all our heat and drives our weather system.

Of course it has no effect! Good job the sun is constant, eh?

You might like to read the link above too. This has all been investigated by solar physicists and there is a consensus in that field that solar activity is not the main factor in recent climate change.

Notice how this makes a mockery of all the claims of bias that we've heard. How come most solar physicists don't want more money to research climate change and predict solar activity?

[AleHop 0]

Oh, this thread looks like a circular dabate.

http://walkwithaswagger.blogspot.com/2007/...ar-debates.html

Well, maybe not yet but...

[Oli 1]

Doh! Oli. As the study I placed shows, placing the wind farms further apart does not help (that's actually the whole point of the study) - they analysed weather and power generation statistics from Germany, Denmark and UK - the distance equivalent of California to Kansas (half way across the USA). They found that a weather system causing no/low winds, affected most of Europe, sometimes for periods of up to 10 days and particularly at peak demand times (Winter). This was not unusual and their conclusion was that this would lead to inefficient use of gas turbines which would constantly have to be cycled up and down.

Oh yes and the UK is the windiest country in Europe....

Well actually the abstract of the study says nothing of the sort- it merely says that connecting to "neighbouring countries" won't help. Without buying the study I can't really tell what those neighbouring countries are (i.e. how large an area they're referring to), but it's hardly relevant. Ultimately if you have a shortfall you make it up by buying from another country where there is wind. Or solar power, etc. That's obviously a long way off, but it's a thought. We buy our oil from elsewhere- why not our electricity?

As far as I can tell all the study really says is "at the moment we can't reach the government targets for wind power". Big deal- that's what targets are for- they're supposed to be ambitious. In addition the study assumes even spread of wind farms over the UK, rather than optimum placement. But that's by-the-by. I've already explained wind power is not the total solution.

Double doh! I am suggesting a more considered approach to the use of wind power rather than slapping in tons of wind farms. How is that knee jerk?

What approach is that then? All you've done is to rubbish any suggestion I've made about the way it might be used; hence, knee-jerk. Provide some alternatives- what's the ultimate plan when the oil runs out? Or do you think that's a myth too?

UK Government is setting a target of 25GW of generated power by 2020 (which is a lot). The vast majority of that will be wind based as solar is too expensive/inefficient and wave power has yet to provide workable large scale energy production solutions. That means they also have to have 25GW of fossil-fuel power stations on standby to make up the shortfall.

Yep. As I said, it's a target, and a tough one. Such a target would have been unthinkable a few years ago- you're assuming there will be no developments in the field until the target date which will improve things. You're also assuming energy cannot be stored effectively, which although partly true can be solved by systems such as the Israeli one.

I also never said don't get any power from wind - I was saying that it is not as simple as it seems and in fact one of the primary aims for using wind may not materialise as it requires the inefficient use of CO2-producing gas turbines to back it up.

That aim being to cut CO2 emission? I still think you're being unnecessarily negative, and using today's models on tomorrows energy production.

Triple doh! I never said that, don't put words into my mouth!

I just said that it needs further consideration, rather than what is happening, which is a mushrooming of wind farms to meet a Government-set target. Sure we need alternatives, but most are currently too expensive/unreliable/juvenile in their development.

The more we employ the technology the more we'll learn about it. Even if, as you say, they are net carbon emitters in the short term, why does it matter to you? You don't even believe the Earth is warming up, as far as I can tell, so the carbon emissions shouldn't matter to you. The cost is offset by the energy produced, so it can't be that. Is it their appearance?

Add to the the Carbon Trust's recent study which discovered that domestic roof-top wind turbines are also net carbon emitters. http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...eWindEnergy.pdf

The fact is that carbon-based power generation is a certainty for some time to come (rightly or wrongly).

If that's your conclusion then of course I agree with you- it's self evident- nobody's claiming things are going to change overnight. I would summarise thus:

1) There are areas where an environmentalists aims and Joe Public's aims may actually coincide.

2) There are areas where carbon can be cut (at least in the long term) without a significant impact on the consumer.

3) Nobody is asking the consumer to give up having babies etc, nor even make life-altering changes.

4) Acceptance of global warming puts more focus on alternative energy sources, thus leading to greater technological improvements in their production

5) Targets are set high for a reason- twenty years (or even ten) is a long time technologically speaking.

[Max Mosley 2]

3) Nobody is asking the consumer to give up having babies etc, nor even make life-altering changes.

I have to disagree with you there, Oli. If particular parents can't grasp GW perhaps, to safeguard the future of humanity, we should ask them to give up having babies.