Global protests over climate change

[canuckamuck]

Yes the degree of uncertainty of the models so far has been infinite with no models making an accurate prediction . A monkey with a crayon has a better chance of plotting an accurate chart. But as you say the IPCC has deemed this acceptable.

[Ulysses G.]

@ Ulysses G.

You have expressed your view in this thread that it cannot be right to release such huge quantities of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. So, if you were to be offered the option to save money off your electricity bill, through the installation of PV panels would you take up this option? Similarly, in colder countries would you look to save money through more insulation?

i think that you have mixed me up with someone else.

I think you will find you said in post no.112 "I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere".

May I also add, you appear to be compulsive denier.

You are quoting Dr Charles Krauthammer who was quoted in one of my posts, but I don't mind being mixed up with him at all. I don't think he would be too pleased though.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Somtamme]

@ canuckamuck;

I'm glad you understand there is a degree of uncertainty with the IPCC model, and that this is deemed acceptable. But, to draw an analogy to this with a monkey and a crayon is idiotic, and furthermore shows what knowledge you have in this field.

[Somtamme]

@ Ulysses, if your posts were made more legible it would help

[Ulysses G.]

"Legible?" Sorry, I have always had bad handwriting.

[chuckd]

@ Ulysses, if your posts were made more legible it would help

UG's post is perfectly clear as to the originator of the quote, as is the link provided.

Hard to admit when you make a fool of yourself, isn't it.

[canuckamuck]

@ canuckamuck;

I'm glad you understand there is a degree of uncertainty with the IPCC model, and that this is deemed acceptable. But, to draw an analogy to this with a monkey and a crayon is idiotic, and furthermore shows what knowledge you have in this field.

I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase degree of uncertainty.

If you take the 90 or so climate models supplied by the climate science industry and put them all together you will see they all have an upward curve indicating a prediction of warming.

But then you look at reality, and for this we cannot go into the future, but we can look at the last 20 years. And there we should find some agreement with 90 super advanced climate models.

But nope.

The reality is a flat line, zero warming. So when I suggested a monkey with a crayon would have better odds at making an accurate chart, I wasn't kidding. It is entirely likely that if given 90 attempts the monkey will at one point draw a straight line. And we know for sure that the climate models can never have achieve this result because they are loaded with algorithms using CO2 warming as a known quantity. The models are programmed to go up. Therefore the monkey gets my vote to replace the IPCC.

[chuckd]

@ canuckamuck;

I'm glad you understand there is a degree of uncertainty with the IPCC model, and that this is deemed acceptable. But, to draw an analogy to this with a monkey and a crayon is idiotic, and furthermore shows what knowledge you have in this field.

I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase degree of uncertainty.

If you take the 90 or so climate models supplied by the climate science industry and put them all together you will see they all have an upward curve indicating a prediction of warming.

But then you look at reality, and for this we cannot go into the future, but we can look at the last 20 years. And there we should find some agreement with 90 super advanced climate models.

But nope.

The reality is a flat line, zero warming. So when I suggested a monkey with a crayon would have better odds at making an accurate chart, I wasn't kidding. It is entirely likely that if given 90 attempts the monkey will at one point draw a straight line. And we know for sure that the climate models can never have achieve this result because they are loaded with algorithms using CO2 warming as a known quantity. The models are programmed to go up. Therefore the monkey gets my vote to replace the IPCC.

And the monkey works a lot cheaper that all those scientists and their collective staffs.

[isawasnake]

It is very much a sight to behold to see people willingly come forth and say they reject science. It is maybe even more of a sight to see that they seem to think they have the upper hand in an argument in doing so.

To compare the effectiveness of science in human history to any sort of random events or behaviors is ludicrous. Any person suggesting as much should of course lose all credibility.

To take it even a step further, the argument posed above would necessarily posit that this individual would believe in the science when/if the climate does in fact continue warming. So be it. He will be a little slow, but if taken at his own word he will join the party in time no doubt.

Some people need to actually see or experience things to believe them. Others have a bit more faith in the experts and the science. The biggest problem I have with many of the deniers' arguments is that they are disingenuous. Even in the case that the points they are using to argue are reversed, they maintain their positions.

[canuckamuck]

I certainly do not reject science. I reject the position being presented despite the failure of the evidence. When the experiment fails science does not call the results acceptable. Science says try again. Ideology says the science is settled.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Richard Feynman put it beautifully:

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart he was who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

Except, it seems, in climate science.

[JDGRUEN]

The sun was more active - it got warmer. The sun got less active - The sun got quieter. It getting cooler now. It's not complicated.

There has been no Global Warming for 18 years now... And this warming pause has happened in the presence of increasing CO2 ---- It's the Sun - stupid!

It’s Official: Global Warming ‘Pause’ or Standstill extends to over 18 years – ‘Pause’ has ‘endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/

Monckton: 'The possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.'

'The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.'

'The spike in temperatures caused by the Great El Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.'

[carolbond]

actually its about the person.. for some, its really serious issue, while for others, it is not their work to think about it..

slots 4u

[chuckd]

We have this...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists to ‘fast-track’ evidence linking global warming to wild weather

Aim is to thwart sceptics from dismissing extreme event as 'natural weather variation'

TOM BAWDEN, ENVIRONMENT EDITOR Friday 03 October 2014

It typically takes about a year to determine whether human-induced global warming played a role in a drought, storm, torrential downpour or heatwave – and how big a role it played.

This allows climate sceptics to dismiss any given extreme event as part of the “natural weather variation” in the immediate aftermath, while campaigners automatically blame it on global warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-to-fasttrack-evidence-linking-global-warming-to-wild-weather-9773767.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love that first sentence. They are complaining it takes a year to determine whether human-induced warming played a role.

My question to that is...when are they going to determine there is such a thing as human-induced warming?

When the weather doesn't agree with their models, they simply re-write the models to conform to what they want to prove.

What a farce this all is.

[isawasnake]

I certainly do not reject science. I reject the position being presented despite the failure of the evidence. When the experiment fails science does not call the results acceptable. Science says try again. Ideology says the science is settled.

You do reject science.

You are not a scientist.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I love how there are Richard Feynman quotes in here as if to support the deniers. That is so amusing. Why don't you look up some of his living contemporaries that can actually voice their opinion? Try Stephen Hawking. Wait, you understand scientific theory better than Mr. Hawking, don't you. I'm sorry, but you people are a joke. If you don't understand that even 1000 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye on a global/geological time scale, there is no helping you, because people like Mr. Hawking make a habit out of supporting poor scientific method, correct? And they don't understand the time frames we are dealing with as well as you, right? You are truly the idiots of the world IF you really do believe that.

This is the bottom line that trumps every argument you can come up with. We have seen warming at a RATE almost 10 times higher than we have ever seen in the ice core history. 10 times faster than the earth has ever warmed since we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. People like you see that as some sort of coincidence, while the scientists who you reject don't. They know a lot more than you. A 20 year period is like a dot on a graph to them, it does not settle anything. You really can't argue your way around the above facts. You can and do spout out a lot of regurgitated erroneous information that has been spread into the conscience of the public via lobbyists and the absurd amounts of money they throw out there. Your opinion has essentially been bought.

And, if you don't understand all that, maybe you could take a look at say the history of the dow jones industrial average to understand what scientists are saying, because you clearly don't understand. The temperatures of the earth will warm in the long term. They may level off, they may even go down, but much like the dow jones since itsinception, they are going to be on an unnaturally rapid upward swing in over the long haul, and they have in fact already shown this pattern. So reject that all you want, but it just proves that you have an agenda with every word out of your mouth.

People like you rely on science all the time. You want to see when the next meteor shower will be, and you obviously don't have the tools and mathematical abilities that these scientists do, so you go look at one of their tables to tell you when it will show up in the night's sky. Yet, when the same scientists do the same calculations and data gathering with equipment you will never have or understand, then you reject that based on your "ideology". You just don't seem to get anything to be honest. People that believe in science don't have an "ideology", they just believe in the science because of its track record. You are the one with the ideology that has rejected science.

So go ahead, have a look at those warming RATES since the industrial revolution, and keep spewing the same nonsensical, paid for "arguments" that you have bought into based on your disgustingly ignorant ideology. I will have no more of listening to it however.

Edited October 6, 2014 by isawasnake

[canuckamuck]

I certainly do not reject science. I reject the position being presented despite the failure of the evidence. When the experiment fails science does not call the results acceptable. Science says try again. Ideology says the science is settled.

You do reject science.

You are not a scientist.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I love how there are Richard Feynman quotes in here as if to support the deniers. That is so amusing. Why don't you look up some of his living contemporaries that can actually voice their opinion? Try Stephen Hawking. Wait, you understand scientific theory better than Mr. Hawking, don't you. I'm sorry, but you people are a joke. If you don't understand that even 1000 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye on a global/geological time scale, there is no helping you, because people like Mr. Hawking make a habit out of supporting poor scientific method, correct? And they don't understand the time frames we are dealing with as well as you, right? You are truly the idiots of the world IF you really do believe that.

This is the bottom line that trumps every argument you can come up with. We have seen warming at a RATE almost 10 times higher than we have ever seen in the ice core history. 10 times faster than the earth has ever warmed since we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. People like you see that as some sort of coincidence, while the scientists who you reject don't. They know a lot more than you. A 20 year period is like a dot on a graph to them, it does not settle anything. You really can't argue your way around the above facts. You can and do spout out a lot of regurgitated erroneous information that has been spread into the conscience of the public via lobbyists and the absurd amounts of money they throw out there. Your opinion has essentially been bought.

And, if you don't understand all that, maybe you could take a look at say the history of the dow jones industrial average to understand what scientists are saying, because you clearly don't understand. The temperatures of the earth will warm in the long term. They may level off, they may even go down, but much like the dow jones since itsinception, they are going to be on an unnaturally rapid upward swing in over the long haul, and they have in fact already shown this pattern. So reject that all you want, but it just proves that you have an agenda with every word out of your mouth.

People like you rely on science all the time. You want to see when the next meteor shower will be, and you obviously don't have the tools and mathematical abilities that these scientists do, so you go look at one of their tables to tell you when it will show up in the night's sky. Yet, when the same scientists do the same calculations and data gathering with equipment you will never have or understand, then you reject that based on your "ideology". You just don't seem to get anything to be honest. People that believe in science don't have an "ideology", they just believe in the science because of its track record. You are the one with the ideology that has rejected science.

So go ahead, have a look at those warming RATES since the industrial revolution, and keep spewing the same nonsensical, paid for "arguments" that you have bought into based on your disgustingly ignorant ideology. I will have no more of listening to it however.

How lovely, a 'people like you rant'.

Please show me a link to some evidence that the warming of the earth since the industrial revolution is 10 times faster than at any time in the temperature record. I will even be impressed with even 2 times the rate.

Also please note that the time since the industrial revolution is also just a 'blink of the eye' of the climate record, so you discredit your own point from the beginning. A little journey into the temperature record should be quite revealing to you about all the times we have been much hotter and got there quickly.

But most importantly I am dying to see how studying the history of the DOW Jones will enlighten me to the future of global temperature increase. Please please respond, I really want to hear more.

[RickBradford]

Golly, they're really having trouble finding duty trolls these days -- it seems almost impossible that such a long post could contain so little substance and so much sneering and name-calling.

To take just one of the absurdities -- if "A 20 year period is like a dot on a graph to them, it does not settle anything" then by the same token we can discount the 23 years of warming that occurred between 1975 and 1998 and which the entire edifice of the global warming movement is based on.

It's also interesting to note that the rate of warming over that period was statistically the same as during the period 1910-1940 and 1860-1880, well before CO2 emissions began to spike. That's according to Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), one of the central figures in climate research.

Period Length Trend

(Degrees C per decade)

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.150

1975-1998 24 0.166

"In answer to the question, the warming rates for all the periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other," Jones

[canman]

I certainly do not reject science. I reject the position being presented despite the failure of the evidence. When the experiment fails science does not call the results acceptable. Science says try again. Ideology says the science is settled.

You do reject science.

You are not a scientist.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I love how there are Richard Feynman quotes in here as if to support the deniers. That is so amusing. Why don't you look up some of his living contemporaries that can actually voice their opinion? Try Stephen Hawking. Wait, you understand scientific theory better than Mr. Hawking, don't you. I'm sorry, but you people are a joke. If you don't understand that even 1000 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye on a global/geological time scale, there is no helping you, because people like Mr. Hawking make a habit out of supporting poor scientific method, correct? And they don't understand the time frames we are dealing with as well as you, right? You are truly the idiots of the world IF you really do believe that.

This is the bottom line that trumps every argument you can come up with. We have seen warming at a RATE almost 10 times higher than we have ever seen in the ice core history. 10 times faster than the earth has ever warmed since we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. People like you see that as some sort of coincidence, while the scientists who you reject don't. They know a lot more than you. A 20 year period is like a dot on a graph to them, it does not settle anything. You really can't argue your way around the above facts. You can and do spout out a lot of regurgitated erroneous information that has been spread into the conscience of the public via lobbyists and the absurd amounts of money they throw out there. Your opinion has essentially been bought.

And, if you don't understand all that, maybe you could take a look at say the history of the dow jones industrial average to understand what scientists are saying, because you clearly don't understand. The temperatures of the earth will warm in the long term. They may level off, they may even go down, but much like the dow jones since itsinception, they are going to be on an unnaturally rapid upward swing in over the long haul, and they have in fact already shown this pattern. So reject that all you want, but it just proves that you have an agenda with every word out of your mouth.

People like you rely on science all the time. You want to see when the next meteor shower will be, and you obviously don't have the tools and mathematical abilities that these scientists do, so you go look at one of their tables to tell you when it will show up in the night's sky. Yet, when the same scientists do the same calculations and data gathering with equipment you will never have or understand, then you reject that based on your "ideology". You just don't seem to get anything to be honest. People that believe in science don't have an "ideology", they just believe in the science because of its track record. You are the one with the ideology that has rejected science.

So go ahead, have a look at those warming RATES since the industrial revolution, and keep spewing the same nonsensical, paid for "arguments" that you have bought into based on your disgustingly ignorant ideology. I will have no more of listening to it however.

" I will have no more of listening to it however"

Thank God for that; please do just go away and find someone else to insult and call names.

[JDGRUEN]

I certainly do not reject science. I reject the position being presented despite the failure of the evidence. When the experiment fails science does not call the results acceptable. Science says try again. Ideology says the science is settled.

You do reject science.

You are not a scientist.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I love how there are Richard Feynman quotes in here as if to support the deniers. That is so amusing. Why don't you look up some of his living contemporaries that can actually voice their opinion? Try Stephen Hawking. Wait, you understand scientific theory better than Mr. Hawking, don't you. I'm sorry, but you people are a joke. If you don't understand that even 1000 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye on a global/geological time scale, there is no helping you, because people like Mr. Hawking make a habit out of supporting poor scientific method, correct? And they don't understand the time frames we are dealing with as well as you, right? You are truly the idiots of the world IF you really do believe that.

This is the bottom line that trumps every argument you can come up with. We have seen warming at a RATE almost 10 times higher than we have ever seen in the ice core history. 10 times faster than the earth has ever warmed since we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. People like you see that as some sort of coincidence, while the scientists who you reject don't. They know a lot more than you. A 20 year period is like a dot on a graph to them, it does not settle anything. You really can't argue your way around the above facts. You can and do spout out a lot of regurgitated erroneous information that has been spread into the conscience of the public via lobbyists and the absurd amounts of money they throw out there. Your opinion has essentially been bought.

And, if you don't understand all that, maybe you could take a look at say the history of the dow jones industrial average to understand what scientists are saying, because you clearly don't understand. The temperatures of the earth will warm in the long term. They may level off, they may even go down, but much like the dow jones since itsinception, they are going to be on an unnaturally rapid upward swing in over the long haul, and they have in fact already shown this pattern. So reject that all you want, but it just proves that you have an agenda with every word out of your mouth.

People like you rely on science all the time. You want to see when the next meteor shower will be, and you obviously don't have the tools and mathematical abilities that these scientists do, so you go look at one of their tables to tell you when it will show up in the night's sky. Yet, when the same scientists do the same calculations and data gathering with equipment you will never have or understand, then you reject that based on your "ideology". You just don't seem to get anything to be honest. People that believe in science don't have an "ideology", they just believe in the science because of its track record. You are the one with the ideology that has rejected science.

So go ahead, have a look at those warming RATES since the industrial revolution, and keep spewing the same nonsensical, paid for "arguments" that you have bought into based on your disgustingly ignorant ideology. I will have no more of listening to it however.

Whatever the warming rate was it STOPPED 18 years ago - as proven by science. Stopped - yes because it is a natural cycle that happens of its own accord - caused by the ebb and flow of the energy output of the Sun... as has been proven by science. But NODs like you Natural Occurrence Deniers will not accept anything that does not fit the slated worship in your religious fervor ... your invisible god Global Warming as caused by human activity - Global Warming never ending... Global Warming continuing forever... is dead ... in fact your invisible god never existed..

[Somtamme]

Dr Moore explains against the IPCC predictions because he thinks we are in an interglacial period when temperatures could be much colder than what they are today. It is like overlaying one argument made by the international scientific community, against an other following the accuracy and timescale over millions of geological years. So if one were to use a monkey and a crayon as an analogy, I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

[canuckamuck]

Dr Moore actually suggests that we are still in an ice age, and his reasoning for that is, that we still have ice on the poles.

But I think he would accept that we are essentially in an interglacial period too.

However that is neither here nor there. I was not referring with Dr. Moore's statements when I predicted that a monkey with a crayon had a better chance at climate prediction than the IPCC models. I am confident 100% that the models are compelled, with ideological inputs and algorithms to always draw an upward curve. While the monkey is not limited by politics and is wholly capable of drawing a straight line. Which as it turns out, is the correct plot of the global temperature for the last 20 years.

Don't knock the monkey,or spank it either.

Edited October 8, 2014 by canuckamuck

[Somtamme]

Furthermore, his argument like many others ignores basic physics that the huge quantity of greenhouse gases being released over such a relatively short period will exert a positive radiative forcing potential and owing to the latency period we could be living with these consequences long into the future e.g.;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

[canuckamuck]

No it doesn't, he says that that the relationship between the greenhouse effect of CO2 and atmospheric variables such as water vapor have not yet been defined, and because the the last 20 years of increasing CO2 emissions have not caused any warming, clearly the mainstream theories, including radiative forcings are inaccurate or grossly overstated. (paraphrased, as I am to busy to watch the video again)

[Somtamme]

@ Canuck; You see the level of uncertainty as you put it introduced by Dr Moore's arguments is highly uncertain, that he thinks that we are still in an ice age, and his reasoning for that is, that we still have ice on the poles but he might accept that we are essentially in an interglacial period too.

So, answer me one question, do you believe it is right that we release millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without concern and without need to reduce these emissions in a fair and equitable way?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Somtamme

[canuckamuck]

CO2 is one of the single most important compounds in the atmosphere. If we had a little less of it, all life on this planet would cease. Yet if we had more, there would be a tremendous increase in the world's food supply. Because this is plant food and plants really prefer to have much more than they currently get. Ask anyone with a greenhouse. I am also not to concerned about water vapor, which is the the main greenhouse gas in our environment. We can't really do anything about water vapor can we? But perhaps we could do more to limit methane. I think that is possible. But there ought to be a better reason to do that then than climate change. Methane recapture is very good idea economically.

What I really think you should be concerned about is all the known toxins that get released into the environment every day. Instead of the organic compounds which are essential to life.

Yes I am uncertain of whether or not Dr Moore would agree that we are in an interglacial period as well as being at the tail end of an ice age. This is why I said I suppose. It's a question of terms. You would have to ask him to know for sure.

Edited October 8, 2014 by canuckamuck

[Somtamme]

To be clear from me, it's just not a debate about global warming, but more to do with reducing the effects of climate change though effective energy, transport and housing policies. This is the issue here. The people arguing so vehemently against the IPCC have a tendency to come across as greedy and with out of date ideas, which are so far away from what we should be expecting of our Govt's, politicians and utility services.

In terms of climate change and your point about the pollutants, I agree this is important, but the first principle is to do with reducing demand in the first place through for example striving for excellent planning and building standards. But, yes looking at ways to tackle the pollutants and at the same time of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important.

But using Thailand as an example, electricity demand is increasing more than what was previously predicted, which means additional generating plants and even imports of energy from neighbouring countries. The growing levels of traffic congestion is also not sustainable. The task at hand is at same time as meeting this demand, policies could be introduced aimed at reducing energy consumption through better planning and building standards with long term financial and environmental benefits. It is also about moving over to more efficient energy generating capacity.

[canuckamuck]

Your obviously concerned about the environment, nothing wrong with that. The way forward is technology and planning, not legislation.

Everyone is in favor of a cleaner environment. But it won't happen until the economics favor it.

Just a question, what is the difference between climate change and global warming. Your post implies they are different things.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

To be clear from me, it's just not a debate about global warming, but more to do with reducing the effects of climate change though effective energy, transport and housing policies. This is the issue here. The people arguing so vehemently against the IPCC have a tendency to come across as greedy and with out of date ideas, which are so far away from what we should be expecting of our Govt's, politicians and utility services.

1. What makes you think anything humans do, has any effect on the world climate?

(excluding nuclear war)

2. If you did conclude human efforts can effect world climate, how would you decide if the human effect is good or bad?

3. How would you know if your efforts (if any) were making things better or worse?

From everything I can understand, I see the world getting a bit warmer as generally good for the western world.

From everything I can understand, I see extra atmospheric CO2 as generally good for increased crop yield.

Reduced CO2 and reduced world temperature would kill many in the western world (starvation and hypothermia).

Edited October 9, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[Chicog]

Your obviously concerned about the environment, nothing wrong with that. The way forward is technology and planning, not legislation.

Everyone is in favor of a cleaner environment. But it won't happen until the economics favor it.

Just a question, what is the difference between climate change and global warming. Your post implies they are different things.

The economics will never favour it, there will always be an excuse.

For heavens sake, you only have to look at how corporations pollute like buggery if it increases the bottom line and there are not sufficient controls.

That's why we have legislation.

The same applies to things like renewable energy: Unless you provide financial incentives (which could come from corporate taxes), your only other option is to force companies to spend money on renewables rather than shoving all their cash in their bank accounts.

If you don't do either, they will ignore the issue.

It is profits that are being placed at the expense of the environment, not economics.

The real question is whether or not this will become enough of an issue globally for people to elect politicians who might actually do something about it.

That, of course, is where it all goes t*ts up.

[canman]

Renewables look good on paper but in practice we simply are not there yet. The massive ongoing investment in windfarms both on and offshore is simply not economically viable. I suspect there is a larger carbon foot print constructing and installing these things then you will ever get back.

More should be done with solar; cost per watt generated by solar is coming down all the time and eventually there should be no reason why every roof can't be covered in solar cells feeding into the grid, but we are not there yet and you are still going to need power at night. Current storage systems are not efficent although fly wheel technology is and is starting to be used on an industrial scale.

We are stuck with burning hydro carbons; for the immediate future at least. The focus of western govenments at the moment in penalising growth with carbon taxes is nothing but a waste of resources. Without India and China onboard it is just P!$$!ng into the wind. So it doesn't matter what side of the global warming arguement you come down on the current efforts ain't going to make a differance whatsoever.