Climate change will show no mercy to dithering Thailand

[RickBradford]

Citing the World Bank on climate change is like citing Kenneth Lay on financial probity.

The World Bank exists to create and foment crises, not solve them. Because if there were no crises, there would be no need for a World Bank. It's Parkinson's Law of Bureaucracy: "Problems always increase to fill just more than the total available time of all the bureaucrats assigned to deal with them."

As for the 4C figure, not even the UN's IPCC takes that seriously. If the world "continues on its current trajectory" of the past 18 years, then global warming by 2100 will be zero.

The World Bank is just trying it on, looking to gain kudos with some dim-bulb journalists and activists, and as ever finding a ready audience.

[RPCVguy]

No problems Rick. So far you've not accepted the opinions and supporting links posted sourced by the

• IPCC, and the many scientists globally who assemble their reports
• World Bank,
• Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences (see the PDF in my last comment.)
• insurance risk assessments
• risk analysis experts.
• Oil companies (who are ready to pay a Carbon Tax) and
• doctors are citing the risks of health problems from pollution as well as increased risks of infectious diseases.

You've got a way to dismiss anybody and any collection of data that disagrees with your desired outlook on what is happening.
You comments back are generally opinion, ungrounded in any consistent explanation of the observations (quality theory requires accounting for all known observations.)
At this point I'd begin to be concerned if I was agreeing with any study or group that you found favorable.
Agreement would make me want to double or triple check if that rare instance was indeed grounded in reality.

The 6°C possibility is the upper limit that the IPCC deemed unlikely but possible ... if humans persist on the trajectory of business as usual burning of fossil fuels.
4°C is more than possible from a number of analyses and 2°C will be a tough increase to be limited to.
The current plateau since the 1998 El Nino year in terms of temperatures is part of the cyclical patterns we've seen repeatedly. It won't last.
I responded to you 4 years ago with this same image - and discussed it again in this thread at
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-5#entry8058930

Check out that comment, it even has an updated example of trend analysis.

[thaibeachlovers]

No problems Rick. So far you've not accepted the opinions and supporting links posted sourced by the

• IPCC, and the many scientists globally who assemble their reports
• World Bank,
• Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences (see the PDF in my last comment.)
• insurance risk assessments
• risk analysis experts.
• Oil companies (who are ready to pay a Carbon Tax) and
• doctors are citing the risks of health problems from pollution as well as increased risks of infectious diseases.

You've got a way to dismiss anybody and any collection of data that disagrees with your desired outlook on what is happening.

You comments back are generally opinion, ungrounded in any consistent explanation of the observations (quality theory requires accounting for all known observations.)

At this point I'd begin to be concerned if I was agreeing with any study or group that you found favorable.

Agreement would make me want to double or triple check if that rare instance was indeed grounded in reality.

The 6°C possibility is the upper limit that the IPCC deemed unlikely but possible ... if humans persist on the trajectory of business as usual burning of fossil fuels.

4°C is more than possible from a number of analyses and 2°C will be a tough increase to be limited to.

The current plateau since the 1998 El Nino year in terms of temperatures is part of the cyclical patterns we've seen repeatedly. It won't last.

I responded to you 4 years ago with this same image - and discussed it again in this thread at

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/page-5#entry8058930

Check out that comment, it even has an updated example of trend analysis.

Your quote shows the error that anyone who believes that we can do anything about climate change is making.

<Oil companies (who are ready to pay a Carbon Tax) >

Paying a carbon tax while continuing to burn carbon will make zero difference to the outcome. It will just make the people poorer and the rich richer.

I don't know why people don't understand that the cause of man made carbon overpollution is OVERPOPULATION. The world has at least 3 billion too many people, and no amount of windmills will change anything, as long as everyone wants to drive their own car and live miles and miles and miles from where they work, and fly to an exotic destination for a holiday.

They just don't get that to make ANY REAL difference, we have to stop burning carbon, PERIOD. No private cars in towns/ cities, no mass air tourism, no car racing, no sports events in stadiums at all ( only on tv ), 100% nuclear replacement of ALL fossil fuelled power stations where alternatives are insufficient, hydrogen powered transportation ( no cabon fuel used in towns/ cities ), no heating other than electrically generated. Also have to stop raising animals to eat because of their gas ( farting ) output. Do that within 10 years and it might not be too late.

However, I have ZERO confidence that humanity will make the sacrifices required to make a difference. For starters, compulsory sterilisation after one child, per couple.

So, either the GW people are correct and we will all die in methane storms, or they are wrong, and it will just be another climate variation in the planet's life. I'm not saying that things will go back to what used to be ( which is but a blip in the life of the planet ), but mankind may be able to adapt and not be exterminated.

However, jetting off to yet another conference on climate change is hardly setting a good example- "do what I say, not what I do"!

I believe that Gaia has had enough of us destroying the treasure she has bestowed on humanity, and is warming things up to exterminate us, like I do a colony of ants invading my house. I'm just grateful every day that I didn't bring any children into the world to suffer.

[thaibeachlovers]

WORLD BANK REPORT: TURN DOWN THE HEAT

You realize of course that the world bank is the ultimate collection of banksters and ultra-rich. They exist for one reason. .Accumulation of wealth. Carbon credits have the potential of being a new fiat currency. If you haven't studied the history of currency, banks owe their existence to fiat currencies.

While I've demonstrated taking the time to look through many of the videos and posts thrown out onto this thread by the climate-deniers, Canuckamuck asks a question he'd already know I've considered - IF he'd had the wisdom to look at my post from yesterday. He'd also know not to continue harping on Carbon Credits, Carbon Trading - no one here is supporting those ... (duh!)

Be willing to learn something...

A serious analysis of planetary resources such as here supplied by chemist / economist Chris Martenson. He does NOT look much at the need to reduce population, and he ignores Climate Change in his review of the environment - but he absolutely shows the folly of thinking what was briefly the norm in the latter half of the 20th Century could ever be continued long on a finite planet.

Note: Because Martenson is an economist, this video has advice that will appeal

to the financial conservatives. At under an hour, it is a condensed version of his

2008 video series of 3½ to 4 hours.

The Accelerated Crash Course

I absolutely believe that the climate is changing, I just don't know if it's caused by humans or not.

However, to believe that humans cause climate change and not advocate for population reduction is just BARKING, and is why nothing will be done that makes any real difference. Given that the population is set to increase by billions, and they will all be using carbon, it's only the wilfully ignorant that can pretend carbon caused pollution will decrease by imposing a carbon tax and building windmills etc that will not be able to replace fossil fuel use entirely ( only 10% or so at the moment ).

A good example why it will all fail is given by Japan, where the people are demanding the elimination of nuclear generated power in favour of oil fired generators.

[connda]

Personally I believe that all you folks who drank the man-made climate change kool-aide should willingly contribute 25% of your income to you own governments with a note that your generous contribution should be used to fight climate change.

I consider it to be propaganda and fear mongering (that's obviously worked with the more impressionable individuals in the world) for one purpose -- to impose a world-wide scheme of carbon taxes that benefit less than 1% of the population. Why do you think Al Gore and his backers made that movie -- out of compassion for humanity? Ah-huh. To paraphrase PT Barnum, there's a sucker in every crowd. If the shoe fits, lace that bad boy up and wear it. Enjoy you delusions, and when the climate models don't fit, fake the data.

[thaibeachlovers]

The global warming claptrap will be laughable in a decade or two.

btw...Whahatever happened to the hole in the sky?

It served its purpose for a couple of decades...now forgotten.

I quote from the 'Report from Iron Mountain.

[ BS Snippet removed ]

I believe the ozone " hole in the sky " was actually dealt with successfully.

Polar warming deniers- and it is polar warming, are all about man's right to sh* t where he sleeps. No matter others are sleeping there, too.

They think the globe is a pot of coffee that should heat up uniformly, and take any cold weather phenomena such as last winters pull down currents as " evidence" warming is a farce. It's only nature trying to balance, and she will alright.

It's the rate of change that is accelerated by green house gasses emitted by industries, and when methane is mixed in , it will be a runaway train. Lots of methane in ice caps. Just wait until the western Antarctic ice sheet breaks off.

Glad I'm not any younger, we've seen the best , kids today will have a crap world handed to them.

Odd thing is most deniers breed like crazy...Kids all over the world, two, even three generations of offspring sometimes. Something about being irresponsible..

I understand that the methane is actually in the tundra, not the ice cap. It is released when the ice retreats and exposes the tundra. As there is no tundra in Antarctica, would there be any methane release? I think not, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Also the ice sheets in Antarctica are floating on the sea. The danger is that once the ice sheets are gone, the ice cap ( on land ) will then flow easily out to sea, raising the sea level. However, if air temperature increases, it may start to snow in cenral Antarctica, thus removing water from the sea and cancelling out any rise in sea levels ( It doesn't snow in central Antarctica- what is there was deposited thousands of years ago ).

I agree with you about overbreeding being irresponsible. However, when even Romney has a veritable tribe of children, what hope is there of bringing in population control?

[VincentRJ]

Vincent, that is a fair analysis as to the uncertainty as to what will prevail, BUT IT ISN'T NEWS.

RPCVguy,

That's exactly what I felt about your linked video, 'The Accelerated Crash Course'. Not only was there nothing new for me, it was terribly long and tedious. I waited to learn something new but most of the points made were very obvious. For example, does anyone really need to be told that there's no profit to be made in spending the equivalent of a barrel of oil in order to extract and process a barrel of oil?

The narrator also missed a few opportunities to describe more fundamental issues that climate change alarmists should take note of. It is clear to me that our wealth (in total, or on average) is entirely dependent on the true cost of energy plus the efficiency with which we use that energy, excluding natural calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions from outer space.

If the cost of energy increases without a commensurate increase in efficiency, then economic growth must slow. A popular way of increasing efficiency is to employ cheap labour, which is what China has offered, resulting in lots of companies transferring their operations there.

Other ways of increasing efficiency include reducing waste, reorganizing work practices and introducing more efficient machinery and/or robots.

In a competitive free market, with a bit of help from governments, there should be a natural progression from fossil fuels to renewable fuels as fossil fuels become more expensive due to increasing scarcity.

One of the roles of governments is to facilitate and encourage such a transition in an orderly and efficient manner. It makes complete sense to spend a portion of our current energy supplies from fossil fuels on research and development of alternative energy supplies.

Already we have a number of models of electric cars which work quite well but are currently more expensive than petrol and diesel operated cars, without a government subsidy. As petrol prices increase, and electric car technology simultaneously develops, the electric car should become more popular and desirable, which in turn will result in lower prices, eventually causing the demise of the petrol driven car.

Another point which was not raised in the video, is the role of energy from the sun via photovoltaic panels, solar farms and UHVDC transmission lines. Theoretically, there is no shortage of energy whatsoever, either now or in the future.

From the following Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power we have the following statement:

"Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".

As I mentioned before in a previous post (I think), the Sahara desert alone, if covered with solar panels, could produce about 25 times the current world annual consumption of energy, converting all forms of energy into kilowatt hours. There are so many smaller deserts and uninhabited, arid regions throughout the world, including millions of square kilometres of blank roofs of houses and buildings, the potential for almost unlimited energy supplies is enormous. Of course, nothing is actually unlimited, except infinity, but how about a source of energy that could supply about 100 times what the whole world currently uses annually? Would you say that's sufficient to keep us going for a while?

[RickBradford]

The current plateau since the 1998 El Nino year in terms of temperatures is part of the cyclical patterns we've seen repeatedly.

Sorry, you've just outed yourself as a filthy oil-industry funded denier who should be branded and then gassed.

The whole alarmist position is predicated on the fact that today's global warming is unique, unprecedented, extraordinary, a capitalism-driven anomaly, runaway, irreversible tipping points, inevitable catastrophe. Have you never seen Michael "Piltdown" Mann's hockey stick?

"Cyclical patterns" admit the idea of natural variations in the climate, which is equivalent to spitting in the face of the whole notion that CO2 is the planet's sole thermostat -- increase CO2 and the temperature goes up, reduce it and the temperature goes down. They have even quantified it: 350ppm CO2 = 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial times, no ifs, no buts. There is an influential organisation (350.org) based on promoting exactly this notion, and many governments worldwide have adopted this as their position.

So, recant the heresy of "cyclical patterns" aka natural climate variation, or go and get fitted for your oil-smeared sackcloth and ashes as a vile "denier".

[RPCVguy]

Personally I believe that all you folks who drank the man-made climate change kool-aide should willingly contribute 25% of your income to you own governments with a note that your generous contribution should be used to fight climate change.

I consider it to be propaganda and fear mongering (that's obviously worked with the more impressionable individuals in the world) for one purpose -- to impose a world-wide scheme of carbon taxes that benefit less than 1% of the population. Why do you think Al Gore and his backers made that movie -- out of compassion for humanity? Ah-huh. To paraphrase PT Barnum, there's a sucker in every crowd. If the shoe fits, lace that bad boy up and wear it. Enjoy you delusions, and when the climate models don't fit, fake the data.

Connda - surprised that you are back without again reading the cliff-notes

No deal. Just like warfare, schools, roads and healthcare... everyone has skin in the game. It is a universal tax.

Carbon Tax and dividend though is proposed by many to be income neutral to the government. Collect the tax at the wellhead or coal mine and then pay it out monthly per household ...100%. Use direct deposit accounts. As prices roll through the system the people who use less carbon products will see a net positive dividend, while those who consume more will see only a share of support for their choices.

As I've noted before, politicians will try to siphon off from that fund, and may even have a few good reasons BUT, it'll have it's desired effect on industry because every business will be looking for ways to get materials that are less carbon intensive. Some companies in each industry will be better positioned than others.

NOT applying a cost on carbon DOES serve to continue subsiding those members of the very rich (0.01%) who are profiting by their sale of carbon while externalizing the costs of various pollution it entails. i.e. your argument fails.

[RickBradford]

Collect the tax at the wellhead or coal mine and then pay it out monthly per household ...100%.

Ah yes.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

Well said, Comrade! Forward, O Peasant, to the Glorious Proletarian Revolution and the Death of the Bourgeoisie! Total Victory Shall Be Ours!

[RPCVguy]

Vincent, that is a fair analysis as to the uncertainty as to what will prevail, BUT IT ISN'T NEWS.

RPCVguy,

That's exactly what I felt about your linked video, 'The Accelerated Crash Course'. Not only was there nothing new for me, it was terribly long and tedious. I waited to learn something new but most of the points made were very obvious. For example, does anyone really need to be told that there's no profit to be made in spending the equivalent of a barrel of oil in order to extract and process a barrel of oil?

The narrator also missed a few opportunities to describe more fundamental issues that climate change alarmists should take note of. It is clear to me that our wealth (in total, or on average) is entirely dependent on the true cost of energy plus the efficiency with which we use that energy, excluding natural calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions from outer space.

If the cost of energy increases without a commensurate increase in efficiency, then economic growth must slow. A popular way of increasing efficiency is to employ cheap labour, which is what China has offered, resulting in lots of companies transferring their operations there.

<snip>

As I mentioned before in a previous post (I think), the Sahara desert alone, if covered with solar panels, could produce about 25 times the current world annual consumption of energy, converting all forms of energy into kilowatt hours. There are so many smaller deserts and uninhabited, arid regions throughout the world, including millions of square kilometres of blank roofs of houses and buildings, the potential for almost unlimited energy supplies is enormous. Of course, nothing is actually unlimited, except infinity, but how about a source of energy that could supply about 100 times what the whole world currently uses annually? Would you say that's sufficient to keep us going for a while?

Ok, so neither of us surprised the other... though you failed to mention that when the best efficiency fails to yield more energy in an energy extraction process than was involved in the extraction, then the process must stop. This is EROEI and Tar Sands are now at a 2:1 ratio versus the over 100:1 ratio EROEI that oil drilling offered only a century ago. The logical connection that Martenson avoids, but others are beginning to include is ... POPULATION. Fortunately, others here are beginning to add that concept into the discussion.

Martenson DOES discuss the diminishing access to materials like copper (needed to connect all those solar panels in the Sahara desert, or even on rooftops.) It'll be difficult to impossible to carry current humanity very far on the low grade mineral options now available.

To extend the time-frame for finding a way through the dilemma described I see solar and wind energy as the best options. Yes, there is pollution and there will be environmental degradation near the site of any rare earth mining for rare-earths for wind turbines, but solar is pollution that can be kept localized far better than oil - with its spills.

When I introduced Martenson, I said he sweetened the view by avoiding how to deal with population and climate. While I'm only a friend of a friend of Martenson, I know Paul Chefurka and am recommending his Buddhist logic in this situation. He takes this well known biological concept and applies it to human civilization. He gets to very small numbers, but not all at once, and not irreversibly.

The topic? SUSTAINABILITY

From Paul's Post:

“Carrying capacity” is a well-known ecological term that has an obvious and fairly intuitive meaning: “The maximum population size of a species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment."

Later in his post he adds:

"I use a very strict definition of sustainability. It reads something like this: "Sustainability is the ability of a species to survive in perpetuity without damaging the planetary ecosystem in the process." This principle applies only to a species' own actions, rather than uncontrollable external forces like Milankovitch cycles, asteroid impacts, plate tectonics, etc."

Read Paul's whole argument at http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html

Human's have done vast damage to the ecosystem of Earth. The crowning point might be Climate Change. Then again, IF we dodge that bullet of tipping points and methane release etc., will there be much left? As I've said before, I'm old enough to not live to see most of the consequences. Only my stepchildren and natural family in the USA binds me to the future we are leaving as a legacy. Had humanity not been lured by the marketed options of corporations, then maybe a different future would have still been an option. The option we lost (good considering our consumptive leanings) was space travel. Instead we used our planetary treasury on wars and personal consumption.

What hope remains in a non-global society as fossil fuels fade, that looks to be the utilization of now known best practices in organic farming with water conservation as it flows across land (using swales and ground plants) amid a complex and bio-diverse horticulture such as is taught in Permaculture.

Very limited births while feeding people locally using wiser techniques "Could" mitigate the harshness of the contraction ahead. Within a century the population would be drastically reduced by attrition instead of war. Possible. AND unlikely. Look to today's news in the Ukraine, or the Middle East as symptoms of our continuing divisive nature.

[RPCVguy]

The current plateau since the 1998 El Nino year in terms of temperatures is part of the cyclical patterns we've seen repeatedly.

Sorry, you've just outed yourself as a filthy oil-industry funded denier who should be branded and then gassed.

<snip>

"Cyclical patterns" admit the idea of natural variations in the climate, which is equivalent to spitting in the face of the whole notion that CO2 is the planet's sole thermostat -- increase CO2 and the temperature goes up, reduce it and the temperature goes down. They have even quantified it: 350ppm CO2 = 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial times, no ifs, no buts. There is an influential organisation (350.org) based on promoting exactly this notion, and many governments worldwide have adopted this as their position.

So, recant the heresy of "cyclical patterns" aka natural climate variation, or go and get fitted for your oil-smeared sackcloth and ashes as a vile "denier".

If the consistency in my positions boggles your perspective, perhaps you've spent too much time absorbing the PR "journalism" of the oil industry and its hired climate deniers.

Real analysis includes the facts you think I can't have reviewed, and the papers by the real scientists discuss all these issues in a coherent understanding of events.

[VincentRJ]

Ok, so neither of us surprised the other... though you failed to mention that when the best efficiency fails to yield more energy in an energy extraction process than was involved in the extraction, then the process must stop.

RPCVguy,

I did mention it. This is what I wrote:

"For example, does anyone really need to be told that there's no profit to be made in spending the equivalent of a barrel of oil in order to extract and process a barrel of oil?"

What hope remains in a non-global society as fossil fuels fade, that looks to be the utilization of now known best practices in organic farming with water conservation as it flows across land (using swales and ground plants) amid a complex and bio-diverse horticulture such as is taught in Permaculture.Very limited births while feeding people locally using wiser techniques "Could" mitigate the harshness of the contraction ahead. Within a century the population would be drastically reduced by attrition instead of war. Possible. AND unlikely. Look to today's news in the Ukraine, or the Middle East as symptoms of our continuing divisive nature.

The problems of the world are due to humanity's incessant drive to solve problems by engaging in wars, terrorism and other conflicts, plus the widespread prevalence of corruption and incompetence. Climate change is absolutely trivial compared to those problems.

We should try to look on the bright side of CO2 emissions. Consider it as an asset. When parts of the Australian deserts, and very arid regions, receive the occasional downpour of rain, they miraculously bloom. It's a magnificent sight. That blooming is probably far more vigorous today, than it was a couple of centuries ago, as a result of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As we mentioned before, increased levels of CO2 increase rates of plant growth, and in particular cause plants to resist dry conditions better, by reducing the size of pores on the leaves, which results in less evaporation.

Permaculture is a fascinating method of growing crops. One could easily double the quantity of food per acre of land by using Permaculture practices. At present we produce more than enough food to provide an ideal diet for every man, woman and child on the planet. The problem is, we throw away about 1.4 billion tonnes of food each year, for a variety of reasons, which include lack of adequate storage in some countries, food passing its use-by date, a lack of infrastructure to transport food to where it's urgently needed, and a lack of cosmetic beauty, which results in food being rejected for the market..

In addition to that 1.4 billion tonnes of wastage, there's another, perhaps 1 billion additional tonnes of wastage due to the over-consumption of food that results in obesity and general overweightedness.

From the perspective of the best practices of science and technology, the world could sustain a population of at least 20 billion, if we act intelligently.

Our future is dependent on two factors; energy supplies and imagination. The sun provides us with (almost) unlimited energy. Our imagination, intelligence, and competence needs a re-organisation in order to see the potential.

[connda]

The current plateau since the 1998 El Nino year in terms of temperatures is part of the cyclical patterns we've seen repeatedly.

Sorry, you've just outed yourself as a filthy oil-industry funded denier who should be branded and then gassed.

The whole alarmist position is predicated on the fact that today's global warming is unique, unprecedented, extraordinary, a capitalism-driven anomaly, runaway, irreversible tipping points, inevitable catastrophe. Have you never seen Michael "Piltdown" Mann's hockey stick?

"Cyclical patterns" admit the idea of natural variations in the climate, which is equivalent to spitting in the face of the whole notion that CO2 is the planet's sole thermostat -- increase CO2 and the temperature goes up, reduce it and the temperature goes down. They have even quantified it: 350ppm CO2 = 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial times, no ifs, no buts. There is an influential organisation (350.org) based on promoting exactly this notion, and many governments worldwide have adopted this as their position.

So, recant the heresy of "cyclical patterns" aka natural climate variation, or go and get fitted for your oil-smeared sackcloth and ashes as a vile "denier".

Personally I'm overjoyed that Australia shot down the carbon taxes.

[canuckamuck]

post removed due to problems with a graphic

Edited July 23, 2014 by canuckamuck

[3NUMBAS]

the BKK subway may have a short lifespan

[RPCVguy]

Thanks Vincent.
I saw this yesterday... worth considering.
My preference is discussion, yet sometimes I get drawn into arguments.

[VincentRJ]

Good point, RPCVguy.

I hope no-one thinks I am recommending a world population of 20 billion. I'm merely outlining what would be theoretically possible through the application of currently known, best practices.

I see an analogy between Climate Change Alarmism and Population Growth Alarmism. Members of he former group think we can solve a perceived threat to our well-being by taking direct action to reduce CO2 levels, as though they are some sort of control knob. The latter group thinks we can achieve sustainability by direct intervention in halting the growth of populations.

In my view, the solution to both problems lies in indirect action, attending to other problems.

For example, improving our soils by adopting Permaculture practices and replanting forests will have the effect of sequestering huge quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. We effectively kill not just two birds with one stone, but three.

We solve the man-made climate change alarmism; we improve the fertility of our soils, which are a tremendous asset; and through reforestation we create a greater area of natural habitat for animal species which are in danger of extinction.

The question is, can we live without alarmism?

As regards population growth, it's well known that desperately poor and uneducated people have a greater need to produce large families for their own security. They need extra hands to toil on their small farm, if they have one, and/or someone to take care of them in their old age in a society with no social safety net.

Education, economic development and the introduction of social services are the best solutions.

[thaibeachlovers]

Vincent, that is a fair analysis as to the uncertainty as to what will prevail, BUT IT ISN'T NEWS.

RPCVguy,

That's exactly what I felt about your linked video, 'The Accelerated Crash Course'. Not only was there nothing new for me, it was terribly long and tedious. I waited to learn something new but most of the points made were very obvious. For example, does anyone really need to be told that there's no profit to be made in spending the equivalent of a barrel of oil in order to extract and process a barrel of oil?

The narrator also missed a few opportunities to describe more fundamental issues that climate change alarmists should take note of. It is clear to me that our wealth (in total, or on average) is entirely dependent on the true cost of energy plus the efficiency with which we use that energy, excluding natural calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions from outer space.

If the cost of energy increases without a commensurate increase in efficiency, then economic growth must slow. A popular way of increasing efficiency is to employ cheap labour, which is what China has offered, resulting in lots of companies transferring their operations there.

Other ways of increasing efficiency include reducing waste, reorganizing work practices and introducing more efficient machinery and/or robots.

In a competitive free market, with a bit of help from governments, there should be a natural progression from fossil fuels to renewable fuels as fossil fuels become more expensive due to increasing scarcity.

One of the roles of governments is to facilitate and encourage such a transition in an orderly and efficient manner. It makes complete sense to spend a portion of our current energy supplies from fossil fuels on research and development of alternative energy supplies.

Already we have a number of models of electric cars which work quite well but are currently more expensive than petrol and diesel operated cars, without a government subsidy. As petrol prices increase, and electric car technology simultaneously develops, the electric car should become more popular and desirable, which in turn will result in lower prices, eventually causing the demise of the petrol driven car.

Another point which was not raised in the video, is the role of energy from the sun via photovoltaic panels, solar farms and UHVDC transmission lines. Theoretically, there is no shortage of energy whatsoever, either now or in the future.

From the following Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power we have the following statement:

"Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".

As I mentioned before in a previous post (I think), the Sahara desert alone, if covered with solar panels, could produce about 25 times the current world annual consumption of energy, converting all forms of energy into kilowatt hours. There are so many smaller deserts and uninhabited, arid regions throughout the world, including millions of square kilometres of blank roofs of houses and buildings, the potential for almost unlimited energy supplies is enormous. Of course, nothing is actually unlimited, except infinity, but how about a source of energy that could supply about 100 times what the whole world currently uses annually? Would you say that's sufficient to keep us going for a while?

Correct, so why haven't all governments made it compulsory to install panels on all available surfaces? Perhaps it's because they wouldn't make any money out of it like they can taxing carbon.

[thaibeachlovers]

Good point, RPCVguy.

I hope no-one thinks I am recommending a world population of 20 billion. I'm merely outlining what would be theoretically possible through the application of currently known, best practices.

I see an analogy between Climate Change Alarmism and Population Growth Alarmism. Members of he former group think we can solve a perceived threat to our well-being by taking direct action to reduce CO2 levels, as though they are some sort of control knob. The latter group thinks we can achieve sustainability by direct intervention in halting the growth of populations.

In my view, the solution to both problems lies in indirect action, attending to other problems.

For example, improving our soils by adopting Permaculture practices and replanting forests will have the effect of sequestering huge quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. We effectively kill not just two birds with one stone, but three.

We solve the man-made climate change alarmism; we improve the fertility of our soils, which are a tremendous asset; and through reforestation we create a greater area of natural habitat for animal species which are in danger of extinction.

The question is, can we live without alarmism?

As regards population growth, it's well known that desperately poor and uneducated people have a greater need to produce large families for their own security. They need extra hands to toil on their small farm, if they have one, and/or someone to take care of them in their old age in a society with no social safety net.

Education, economic development and the introduction of social services are the best solutions.

< replanting forests>

Good luck with that while vast amounts of old growth is being cut down so we can have cheap soap and fast food burgers.

IMO the vast majority of the population either couldn't care less or are too ignorant to even know there is a problem. Do the Japanese know what the environmental cost of replacing all their nuclear power stations with fossil fuelled ones is? If they do, do they care? Are they prepared to pay the real cost? Are they prepared to give up their electronic toys to save power?

<desperately poor and uneducated people have a greater need to produce large families for their own security>

Agreed, but what excuse does Romney have, and why do people in Gaza need 7 or 8 children ( most of them live on charity )?

Edited July 24, 2014 by thaibeachlovers

[VincentRJ]

Vincent, that is a fair analysis as to the uncertainty as to what will prevail, BUT IT ISN'T NEWS.

RPCVguy,

That's exactly what I felt about your linked video, 'The Accelerated Crash Course'. Not only was there nothing new for me, it was terribly long and tedious. I waited to learn something new but most of the points made were very obvious. For example, does anyone really need to be told that there's no profit to be made in spending the equivalent of a barrel of oil in order to extract and process a barrel of oil?

The narrator also missed a few opportunities to describe more fundamental issues that climate change alarmists should take note of. It is clear to me that our wealth (in total, or on average) is entirely dependent on the true cost of energy plus the efficiency with which we use that energy, excluding natural calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions from outer space.

If the cost of energy increases without a commensurate increase in efficiency, then economic growth must slow. A popular way of increasing efficiency is to employ cheap labour, which is what China has offered, resulting in lots of companies transferring their operations there.

Other ways of increasing efficiency include reducing waste, reorganizing work practices and introducing more efficient machinery and/or robots.

In a competitive free market, with a bit of help from governments, there should be a natural progression from fossil fuels to renewable fuels as fossil fuels become more expensive due to increasing scarcity.

One of the roles of governments is to facilitate and encourage such a transition in an orderly and efficient manner. It makes complete sense to spend a portion of our current energy supplies from fossil fuels on research and development of alternative energy supplies.

Already we have a number of models of electric cars which work quite well but are currently more expensive than petrol and diesel operated cars, without a government subsidy. As petrol prices increase, and electric car technology simultaneously develops, the electric car should become more popular and desirable, which in turn will result in lower prices, eventually causing the demise of the petrol driven car.

Another point which was not raised in the video, is the role of energy from the sun via photovoltaic panels, solar farms and UHVDC transmission lines. Theoretically, there is no shortage of energy whatsoever, either now or in the future.

From the following Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power we have the following statement:

"Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".

As I mentioned before in a previous post (I think), the Sahara desert alone, if covered with solar panels, could produce about 25 times the current world annual consumption of energy, converting all forms of energy into kilowatt hours. There are so many smaller deserts and uninhabited, arid regions throughout the world, including millions of square kilometres of blank roofs of houses and buildings, the potential for almost unlimited energy supplies is enormous. Of course, nothing is actually unlimited, except infinity, but how about a source of energy that could supply about 100 times what the whole world currently uses annually? Would you say that's sufficient to keep us going for a while?

Correct, so why haven't all governments made it compulsory to install panels on all available surfaces? Perhaps it's because they wouldn't make any money out of it like they can taxing carbon.

Because we live in a free market economy rather than a Communist dictatorship. In Australia, solar voltaic panels have been heavily subsidised for a number of years. So much so, in fact, that conventional electricity suppliers are in financial trouble due to a fall-off in demand.

Regardless of the Carbon tax, which has now been scrapped, they have to raise prices in order to pay for the heavy investment in infrastructure previously made in anticipation of a demand which now no longer exists, partly because so many houses have solar panels on the roof. I bought one myself about 5 years ago, not because I'm concerned about CO2 levels, but because it made economic sense, particularly in view of the very generous payment for surplus electricity fed back into the grid.

[VincentRJ]

Good point, RPCVguy.

I hope no-one thinks I am recommending a world population of 20 billion. I'm merely outlining what would be theoretically possible through the application of currently known, best practices.

I see an analogy between Climate Change Alarmism and Population Growth Alarmism. Members of he former group think we can solve a perceived threat to our well-being by taking direct action to reduce CO2 levels, as though they are some sort of control knob. The latter group thinks we can achieve sustainability by direct intervention in halting the growth of populations.

In my view, the solution to both problems lies in indirect action, attending to other problems.

For example, improving our soils by adopting Permaculture practices and replanting forests will have the effect of sequestering huge quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. We effectively kill not just two birds with one stone, but three.

We solve the man-made climate change alarmism; we improve the fertility of our soils, which are a tremendous asset; and through reforestation we create a greater area of natural habitat for animal species which are in danger of extinction.

The question is, can we live without alarmism?

As regards population growth, it's well known that desperately poor and uneducated people have a greater need to produce large families for their own security. They need extra hands to toil on their small farm, if they have one, and/or someone to take care of them in their old age in a society with no social safety net.

Education, economic development and the introduction of social services are the best solutions.

< replanting forests>

Good luck with that while vast amounts of old growth is being cut down so we can have cheap soap and fast food burgers.

Sorry! You've lost me. Is there a connection between the felling of trees, soap production and hamburgers?

If old growth trees are cut down for timber, for house construction and furniture etc, then that is a type of carbon sequestration, provided a new tree is planted for every one cut down, and provided the excess timber, such as small branches and scrap timber from the saw mill, are turned into mulch and returned to the soil.

Agreed, but what excuse does Romney have, and why do people in Gaza need 7 or 8 children ( most of them live on charity )?

There are always exceptions. Mitt Romney is religious, isn't he? Perhaps he doesn't believe in contraception. As for the people in Gaza, they are clearly very insecure. They probably feel the need for a large family to provide a sense of protection and to provide the manpower to fight Israel.

[thaibeachlovers]

Good point, RPCVguy.

I hope no-one thinks I am recommending a world population of 20 billion. I'm merely outlining what would be theoretically possible through the application of currently known, best practices.

I see an analogy between Climate Change Alarmism and Population Growth Alarmism. Members of he former group think we can solve a perceived threat to our well-being by taking direct action to reduce CO2 levels, as though they are some sort of control knob. The latter group thinks we can achieve sustainability by direct intervention in halting the growth of populations.

In my view, the solution to both problems lies in indirect action, attending to other problems.

For example, improving our soils by adopting Permaculture practices and replanting forests will have the effect of sequestering huge quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. We effectively kill not just two birds with one stone, but three.

We solve the man-made climate change alarmism; we improve the fertility of our soils, which are a tremendous asset; and through reforestation we create a greater area of natural habitat for animal species which are in danger of extinction.

The question is, can we live without alarmism?

As regards population growth, it's well known that desperately poor and uneducated people have a greater need to produce large families for their own security. They need extra hands to toil on their small farm, if they have one, and/or someone to take care of them in their old age in a society with no social safety net.

Education, economic development and the introduction of social services are the best solutions.

< replanting forests>

Good luck with that while vast amounts of old growth is being cut down so we can have cheap soap and fast food burgers.

Sorry! You've lost me. Is there a connection between the felling of trees, soap production and hamburgers?

If old growth trees are cut down for timber, for house construction and furniture etc, then that is a type of carbon sequestration, provided a new tree is planted for every one cut down, and provided the excess timber, such as small branches and scrap timber from the saw mill, are turned into mulch and returned to the soil.

Agreed, but what excuse does Romney have, and why do people in Gaza need 7 or 8 children ( most of them live on charity )?

There are always exceptions. Mitt Romney is religious, isn't he? Perhaps he doesn't believe in contraception. As for the people in Gaza, they are clearly very insecure. They probably feel the need for a large family to provide a sense of protection and to provide the manpower to fight Israel.

Are you not aware that vast swathes of rainforest are cut down in Brazil to raise cattle for the US market ( hamburgers ) ie increase in pollution due to cattle farting methane and total loss of trees, and in Indonesia where they plant millions of palm oil trees to make soap etc ie smaller trees so a negative in carbon storage?

If even Romney won't limit his family size, the world is doomed from overpopulation anyway, so what's the point of worrying about it?

<Because we live in a free market economy rather than a Communist dictatorship>

A free market economy will never deliver the changes needed to make any real impact on climate change. Waffling about a 5% reduction in 10 years or whatever BS they come up with is just a waste of time.

At least the Chinese made a real attempt to limit population growth and good on them for having a sane population policy. The west should be so intelligent, but they'll never do it, because the pollies are too gutless to even try.

[airconsult]

Vincent, that is a fair analysis as to the uncertainty as to what will prevail, BUT IT ISN'T NEWS.

RPCVguy,

That's exactly what I felt about your linked video, 'The Accelerated Crash Course'. Not only was there nothing new for me, it was terribly long and tedious. I waited to learn something new but most of the points made were very obvious. For example, does anyone really need to be told that there's no profit to be made in spending the equivalent of a barrel of oil in order to extract and process a barrel of oil?

The narrator also missed a few opportunities to describe more fundamental issues that climate change alarmists should take note of. It is clear to me that our wealth (in total, or on average) is entirely dependent on the true cost of energy plus the efficiency with which we use that energy, excluding natural calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions from outer space.

If the cost of energy increases without a commensurate increase in efficiency, then economic growth must slow. A popular way of increasing efficiency is to employ cheap labour, which is what China has offered, resulting in lots of companies transferring their operations there.

Other ways of increasing efficiency include reducing waste, reorganizing work practices and introducing more efficient machinery and/or robots.

In a competitive free market, with a bit of help from governments, there should be a natural progression from fossil fuels to renewable fuels as fossil fuels become more expensive due to increasing scarcity.

One of the roles of governments is to facilitate and encourage such a transition in an orderly and efficient manner. It makes complete sense to spend a portion of our current energy supplies from fossil fuels on research and development of alternative energy supplies.

Already we have a number of models of electric cars which work quite well but are currently more expensive than petrol and diesel operated cars, without a government subsidy. As petrol prices increase, and electric car technology simultaneously develops, the electric car should become more popular and desirable, which in turn will result in lower prices, eventually causing the demise of the petrol driven car.

Another point which was not raised in the video, is the role of energy from the sun via photovoltaic panels, solar farms and UHVDC transmission lines. Theoretically, there is no shortage of energy whatsoever, either now or in the future.

From the following Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power we have the following statement:

"Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".

As I mentioned before in a previous post (I think), the Sahara desert alone, if covered with solar panels, could produce about 25 times the current world annual consumption of energy, converting all forms of energy into kilowatt hours. There are so many smaller deserts and uninhabited, arid regions throughout the world, including millions of square kilometres of blank roofs of houses and buildings, the potential for almost unlimited energy supplies is enormous. Of course, nothing is actually unlimited, except infinity, but how about a source of energy that could supply about 100 times what the whole world currently uses annually? Would you say that's sufficient to keep us going for a while?

Correct, so why haven't all governments made it compulsory to install panels on all available surfaces? Perhaps it's because they wouldn't make any money out of it like they can taxing carbon.

Because we live in a free market economy rather than a Communist dictatorship. In Australia, solar voltaic panels have been heavily subsidised for a number of years. So much so, in fact, that conventional electricity suppliers are in financial trouble due to a fall-off in demand.

Regardless of the Carbon tax, which has now been scrapped, they have to raise prices in order to pay for the heavy investment in infrastructure previously made in anticipation of a demand which now no longer exists, partly because so many houses have solar panels on the roof. I bought one myself about 5 years ago, not because I'm concerned about CO2 levels, but because it made economic sense, particularly in view of the very generous payment for surplus electricity fed back into the grid.

Not the time to start explaining spot rates in the electricity market really - but the FORCED purchased of your solar generated electricity directly contributed to price rises. The reason is that the market spot price is lowest when the solar panels are at their most efficient - and the forced purchase rate was actually set much higher (about double) even the max spot price during a 24 hr period.

So - your panels might have lowered your cost - but driven up the cost for all other electricity users.

[VincentRJ]

Are you not aware that vast swathes of rainforest are cut down in Brazil to raise cattle for the US market ( hamburgers )

No. I thought the US was an exporter of beef, as Australia is, but I now see from the internet that the cheaper beef from Brazil has been used for hamburgers, although recent reports seem to suggest there is a lot of resistance in the US to renewing imports of cattle as a result of the risk of disease, so I assume that the imported beef from Brazil is all pre-cooked.

I'm aware that the Amazon basin has been subjected to a lot of deforestation in the past, and this deforestation continues today, but fortunately at a much lower rate than in the past. However, we should not be too critical. I was surprised to learn from the following Wikipedia article what a high percentage of energy production in Brazil comes from renewable sources such as hydropower and wind. Also, Brazil holds the world record for using the highest percentage of renewables for transport; mostly ethanol I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil

A free market economy will never deliver the changes needed to make any real impact on climate change.

Don't be so sure. As fossil fuels become more scarce they become more expensive. As the technology for solar panels and electric cars develop, they become more efficient and more popular, which results in a falling price.

At some point, it makes sense, even to the greedy business man, that renewable energy, particularly solar, will generate more profit.

[VincentRJ]

Not the time to start explaining spot rates in the electricity market really - but the FORCED purchased of your solar generated electricity directly contributed to price rises......So - your panels might have lowered your cost - but driven up the cost for all other electricity users.

Of course. No doubt about it. Initially, about 4 years ago, my peak usage rate was 19.56 cents per kilowatt hour, whilst the solar rebate for surplus electricity fed into the grid was 44 cents per kilowatt hour. The feed-in tariff will remain at 44 cents per kWh until 2028 (I think) for those who installed a PV Panel before June 2012. However, the current peak rate I'm now being charged has risen to 34.5 cents per kWh. Those who installed a PV Panel after June 2012 get only an 8 cent feed-in tariff.

In short, there's no free lunch. The purpose of the Government subsidy is to encourage the development of a new industry, and that seemes to have worked.

[thaibeachlovers]

Are you not aware that vast swathes of rainforest are cut down in Brazil to raise cattle for the US market ( hamburgers )

No. I thought the US was an exporter of beef, as Australia is, but I now see from the internet that the cheaper beef from Brazil has been used for hamburgers, although recent reports seem to suggest there is a lot of resistance in the US to renewing imports of cattle as a result of the risk of disease, so I assume that the imported beef from Brazil is all pre-cooked.

I'm aware that the Amazon basin has been subjected to a lot of deforestation in the past, and this deforestation continues today, but fortunately at a much lower rate than in the past. However, we should not be too critical. I was surprised to learn from the following Wikipedia article what a high percentage of energy production in Brazil comes from renewable sources such as hydropower and wind. Also, Brazil holds the world record for using the highest percentage of renewables for transport; mostly ethanol I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil

A free market economy will never deliver the changes needed to make any real impact on climate change.

Don't be so sure. As fossil fuels become more scarce they become more expensive. As the technology for solar panels and electric cars develop, they become more efficient and more popular, which results in a falling price.

At some point, it makes sense, even to the greedy business man, that renewable energy, particularly solar, will generate more profit.

Some things can only be done with government compulsion eg hydrogen powered transport. The technology exists, but without government compulsion, the infrastructure to support it will not be built.

A good example is in New Zealand which built a natural gas infrastructure to power vehicles. Unfortunately Piggy Muldoon destroyed it by removing the subsidies and it wasn't long before the entire system was eliminated as private enterprise wasn't going to pay the real rate. Of course, NG is recognised as being less polluting than petrol, but that means nothing to businessmen. So much for the government lip service to green technology, preferring to tax carbon.

[mok199]

ok ...we will extend songkran festival to 3 mnths

[DrDweeb]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

I want to do the drugs your doing.

I am not doing any drugs. rakman's post is factually accurate. Do some research, I have, and what you learn is that there is an appalling corruption of science going on, with outright falsification of data commonplace. It's getting warmer, ever so slightly, without any significant deviation from what might be expected (the earth exiting an ice-age and all).

Better water management would help Thailand enormously, however they seem to get it wrong so often (corruption to blame?).

"Climate change" as a theory has been falsified so often that it's only interesting scientific element is its resilience. It is bad science, and it is only the money flow that keeps the idea alive.

[DrDweeb]

Talk about laughable? Your political hate spray on republicans proves you are so left wing biased your opinion is meaningless. I can't believe that with the obsevable facts showing all the models wrong, with all the debate that rages from multitudes of qualified scientists against your opinions that you can say the science is settled? As for cherry picking you do a great job yourself. Global warming may be happening but it is certainly nothing to do with C0 2.( See obsevable facts). Cracks me up that leftists like you that feel so morally superiour are so embroiled in hate speech.

You are cherry picking your science, a symptom of American Republicans. Are you one of those George Murderous Bush touting, Rush WIndbag worshipping idiots?

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

The rapidity of the Greenland ice shelf melting is so rapid that the land mass is rising an inch a year -- ask a geologist, and they will tell that is an insane development. Ask the people whose islands are being swallowed by the rising seas -- just pick one out of literally thousands -- and your arguments do not hold water. Ask people in central Virginia, where they will tell you that it snowed every year while they were growing up and now it is once every few years, because they live where snow is neither absent nor constant and can tell you their margin has shifted..

First, industrialists claimed there was no change. Then they claimed there might be change. Then they admitted there was change going on, even rapid change, but it was not from human action. Now the new call to inaction is that 'there is rapid change, but we cannot do anything about it."

I am one of the 97% of the scientists who agree, and I am no bogus lie. At conferences all over the world, in poll after poll after poll, more than 96.2% of all relevant scientists agree on climate change and furiously argue about what should and can be done (some polls only ask physicians, who are neither meteorologists nor climatologists, and are funded by Republican group-think tanks).

You are cherry picking scientific information to fulfill a political agenda.

That is laughable.

"all relevant scientists" should be read "scientists whose living depends on propogating the lie"

Really, I have several friends who are highly published and very reputable scientists, one a geologist and the other an astrophysicist (the third an irrelevant micro-biologist). Neither thinks AGW exits in any measurable way, and they are, in private, appalled at the politicised state of climate science, as it reflects negatively on science and scientists in general.