Resisting Climate Hysteria

[tothemax6]

And so I have a mix of male and female mice with no breeding over the past few months since the resource constraints became apparent. Prior to that, population was booming.

Now, if a few mice can work this stuff out then you'd think humans would "get it" too? Apparently not...

Smurf I don't know what you mean by this.
It is well known that in the US, Europe, Australia and Japan (and probably more places), the birth rates have been dropped to below replacement for quite some time.
Indeed, last I heard, Japan and some european countries had birth rates around half the replacement level. (Replacement level is considered to be about 2.1 births per woman).
In humans, it is indeed hedonism which fulfills the function of reducing births in advanced societies. Raising kids takes effort, it requires committing to one partner, it requires diverting money from your frivolous luxuries towards raising the kids, you can't spend every weekend getting smashed and chasing a lay etc. Lots just don't bother.

However, herein lies the rub - politicians, instead of accepting demographics, decide they disagree with the demographics. They have ideological slants towards immigration, since it 'creates diversity (changes the nation into something else)', 'supplies much needed labor in X', 'offers a better life for those who live in bad places' etc.
And then there are the capitalists who desire the immigration, since it depresses the wage rate decreases input costs, and raises profits. Hence, they are always keen to lobby for increased immigration.
And thus we end up with the current farcical situation, in which 'our' population instead rises at twice the world average - even though the fundamentals would otherwise cause it to decline.

I'd like put forward a different angle.

If global warming is not man made, and we go to all the trouble of making everything 'green', then at worst we will have created clean air for our cities, lots of new jobs and technologies. We have also reduced our dependence on arab states for greatly diminishing oil supplies. The only downside is cost.
So even if it's just natural cycles occurring, it's still of great benefit to make everything low carbon emission.
If on the other hand the warming is man made, then we've covered our risk side of the equation.

The issue is that the price for doing this is actually enormous. Hence the 'only' downside is also enormous.

ALL power pollutes. ALL of it. All we get to chose is what we wreck, where, and in what manner. But if the lights are on then there's an effect on the natural environment somewhere. Even solar comes at a cost to the environment larger than most realize.

All that said, agreed that we ultimately do need to stop burning fossil fuels. What I'm worried about is that we adopt flawed "solutions" (eg nuclear fission) due to a perception that the change is urgent when waiting longer would give rise to far better alternatives. The perception that it is urgent really leaves us with no choice other than to dam the lot and nuke the rest - not what I'd call "green" by any means.

Could I just point out that humans existing is good? 'Pollution' is a necessary byproduct of our existence. And I fail to see how nuclear is a flawed solution. (Unfortunately I posted a response about nuclear the other day and it doesn't seem to have gone through )

 

[noco]

The link below is a typical example of Labor Government grants for a renwable energy project that has flopped and fallen on deaf ears.
Novemeber 2009 Tim Flannery was granted $90 million by the Rudd Labor Government for a geothermal project that failed. $90 million of tax payers money down the sewer and guess what, our Australian of the year also had a vested interest in the scheme.
The subsidisation of Green renewable energy projects such as solar, wind, wave etc. has cost us billions in subsidies and can never be used for base load power.
Canada has gone nuclear power and has reduced their CO2 emmissions 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. They now have 24 base load nuclear power generators.
As at 2005, 15% of world power generation was produced by nuclear.Yes, that's right, in 2005 31 countries had a total of 439 nuclear power plants.
So if these Green Alarmist were fair dinkum in their efforts to reduce Green House Gases, why not go nuclear in Australia?
It does not make sense with billions wasted on rewable energy subsidies we could have had may be two nuclear power plants now in operation and a reduction of green house gases.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...riermail/comments/flannerys_investment_cools/

 

[wayneL]

A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?

As to the specific question, the answer is no. There is no dispute that man is increasing co2 by burning fossil fuels. But that has never been in dispute AFAIK, apart from a few fringe nutters.

It is a poor question. The best question is how is this increase affecting the climate. This is the basis for the whole climate change argument.

There are a number of ancillary questions and answers to help explain my personal position in the debate, if you'd care to ask better questions.

 

[jonojpsg]

A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels? If so, what data do you have to back that up? If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?Just for interests sake

As to the specific question, the answer is no. There is no dispute that man is increasing co2 by burning fossil fuels. But that has never been in dispute AFAIK, apart from a few fringe nutters.

It is a poor question. The best question is how is this increase affecting the climate. This is the basis for the whole climate change argument.

There are a number of ancillary questions and answers to help explain my personal position in the debate, if you'd care to ask better questions.

Thanks for responding Wayne Looking forward to a response to the better question

The reason I am putting this line of debate forward is that the response of climate to increasing atm CO2 is not certain, eg does temp incr lead or lag CO2 increase, etc. However there are other much more certain effects such as ocean acidification that could have significant deleterious impacts on the global system and which require action to address. IMO of course.

 

[wayneL]

Thanks for responding Wayne Looking forward to a response to the better question

The reason I am putting this line of debate forward is that the response of climate to increasing atm CO2 is not certain, eg does temp incr lead or lag CO2 increase, etc. However there are other much more certain effects such as ocean acidification that could have significant deleterious impacts on the global system and which require action to address. IMO of course.

Acidification is a misnomer. "IMO" there are greater threats to the oceans than marginal decreases in alkalinity.

As with climate change, the impact of co2 is grossly overstated while other more important impacts are ignored.

 

[derty]

derty, I can't see your reasoning in attempting to discredit Andrew Bolt as being scientifically illiterate. To my knowledge he has never made any scientific statements on Global Warming or Climate Change, which ever suits the the Alarmist of the day.

You don't have to say anything scientific to display that you lack scientific understanding.

I don't recall reading any scientific comments by Bolt, only his emphasis on the inaccurate statements by Wong and Flannery, whom neither I might add, are Climate Change scientists. I would suggest to you they are the one's displaying scientific illterancy. Bolt has simply pointed out how WONG AND FLANNERY HAVE GOT IT SO WRONG.

Wong is a politician and Flannery is a publicity *****. To attempt to discredit statements that these two have made by invoking la Nina associated rainfall in no way discredits AGW. They are displaying political opportunism just as Bolt is doing in his attack on them.

Australia oscillates between lengthy periods of drought and shorter periods of high intensity rainfall. It's the norm for us and is largely tied in with the el Nino - la Nina cycle. We have just come off the back of 10 to 13 years of severe drought broken by an intense la Nina. This climatic cycle is independent of warming trends. You cannot use the la Nina rains to invalidate AGW.

We have been seeing a shift to drier climes and, regardless of what is the cause of the warming, increases in temperature are predicted to cause the southern parts of Australia to become drier and the northern, monsoonal areas to become wetter. As we have seen in previous times of flood the intense rains don't last long before the system reverts back to hovering on the boundary of drought. Once the waters in the dams from these last rains has been used we will be back where we were before. The assumption that we will have below average rainfall and exist in a state of relatively constant water stress needs to be made and remediation steps taken. We can't assume that we will get these la Nina rains very 5 or 6 years to replenish the dams. Whilst these recent rains have filled the dams and given us some water security I fear the complacency it generates will sap the necessary drive to persevere with measures to improve our water security.

It is a shame you cannot accept Bolt's criticism of people have made the errors.

I made no reference to this.

 

[noco]

You don't have to say anything scientific to display that you lack scientific understanding.


Wong is a politician and Flannery is a publicity *****. To attempt to discredit statements that these two have made by invoking la Nina associated rainfall in no way discredits AGW. They are displaying political opportunism just as Bolt is doing in his attack on them.

Australia oscillates between lengthy periods of drought and shorter periods of high intensity rainfall. It's the norm for us and is largely tied in with the el Nino - la Nina cycle. We have just come off the back of 10 to 13 years of severe drought broken by an intense la Nina. This climatic cycle is independent of warming trends. You cannot use the la Nina rains to invalidate AGW.

We have been seeing a shift to drier climes and, regardless of what is the cause of the warming, increases in temperature are predicted to cause the southern parts of Australia to become drier and the northern, monsoonal areas to become wetter. As we have seen in previous times of flood the intense rains don't last long before the system reverts back to hovering on the boundary of drought. Once the waters in the dams from these last rains has been used we will be back where we were before. The assumption that we will have below average rainfall and exist in a state of relatively constant water stress needs to be made and remediation steps taken. We can't assume that we will get these la Nina rains very 5 or 6 years to replenish the dams. Whilst these recent rains have filled the dams and given us some water security I fear the complacency it generates will sap the necessary drive to persevere with measures to improve our water security.

I made no reference to this.

derty ole mate, what you have just tried to preach to me is old hat.
Get rid of those bloody Greens and lets build some more dams.

 

[IFocus]

We have been seeing a shift to drier climes and, regardless of what is the cause of the warming, increases in temperature are predicted to cause the southern parts of Australia to become drier and the northern, monsoonal areas to become wetter. As we have seen in previous times of flood the intense rains don't last long before the system reverts back to hovering on the boundary of drought. Once the waters in the dams from these last rains has been used we will be back where we were before. The assumption that we will have below average rainfall and exist in a state of relatively constant water stress needs to be made and remediation steps taken. We can't assume that we will get these la Nina rains very 5 or 6 years to replenish the dams. Whilst these recent rains have filled the dams and given us some water security I fear the complacency it generates will sap the necessary drive to persevere with measures to improve our water security.

WA has been experiencing exactly as you describe. Amazingly our state governments (Lib/nats and Labor) acted on the expertize that said we must build decel plants or we run out of water.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf I don't know what you mean by this.
It is well known that in the US, Europe, Australia and Japan (and probably more places), the birth rates have been dropped to below replacement for quite some time.

World population continues to rise and is well past the point that adverse impacts become observable.

Too many people is ultimately the problem. All this "pollution control" stuff is really just trying to come up with ways of accommodating more and more people when you think about it.

If the population of the world was, say, 500 million then we wouldn't be having this discussion and all would be fine. That it is over 6 billion, all of them wanting a "first world" standard of living, is ultimately the problem.

Could I just point out that humans existing is good? 'Pollution' is a necessary byproduct of our existence. And I fail to see how nuclear is a flawed solution. (Unfortunately I posted a response about nuclear the other day and it doesn't seem to have gone through )

To be a real option nuclear requires that we stop throwing away almost all of the fuel, since there isn't enough of it to continue that way if nuclear power is to take an increasing role globally.

That means we have to start reprocessing uranium rather than the "throw away" nuclear cycle we have today.

The by-product of uranium reprocessing is plutonium.

There have always been wars. There are wars going on right now. We can't even stop the wars long enough just to be able to say there aren't any wars right now. And now we're suggesting that we give literally every country on earth which has electricity, and that is every country or just about, access to plutonium.

Commonsense sees a few problems with having plutonium become as available as raw coal, zinc concentrate or iron ore is today.

Then there's that little point that we don't actually know how we'll decommission these facilities when the time comes. 100 years from now, we'll quite likely still be dealing with nuclear issues from the 1950's. How can such an ever-increasing cost be sustained? We can't even maintain the relatively simple infrastructure (roads etc) we have now, without worrying about a few hundred years' legacy of nuclear sites.

I'm not totally against nuclear energy. It has a valid role to play. Given the choice, I'd ramp up the use of nuclear at the global level in a fairly big way. But then I wouldn't want it in every country (I see no valid reason to use it in Australia, Indonesia or New Zealand) and I'd also be ramping up other energy sources too, specifically geothermal, hydro and to a lesser extent wind as well as unconventional fossil fuel technologies.

Then there's that little point that the pro-nuclear advocates hate. In this country at least, geothermal would almost certainly be cheaper and is equally functional. Rather than throwing $ billions at foreign equipment suppliers, we'd be far better off developing our own geothermal industry here at home.

 

[wayneL]

From our favourite lord, for your comments: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/2010_warmest_on_record.pdf

 

[noco]

From our favourite lord, for your comments: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/2010_warmest_on_record.pdf

Thanks wayne, what a great article. It certainly shows what "FAKES' we have around the world spreading their propaganda. The question is WHY are they doing it?
This Government of ours has been sucked into believing this 'crap' or do they?

 

[sails]

Thanks wayne, what a great article. It certainly shows what "FAKES' we have around the world spreading their propaganda. The question is WHY are they doing it?
This Government of ours has been sucked into believing this 'crap' or do they?

LOL, I don't think they believe it - IMO it's just an excuse for another tax...

Posted an article link some time ago in this thread how Ms Gillard flew the breadth of the country and back in one day just for some back slapping on climate change,. She clearly doesn't give a hoot about her carbon footprints - at least IMO. It appears Al Gore is also in it for the money and his own carbon footprints don't appear to line up with what he preaches.

With science divided and politicians apparently using this as a money grab while not practicing what they preach, I will remain very skeptical...

 

[derty]

Here is some more ground breaking research brought to you by the Science and Public Policy Institute.

I always knew living in Victoria was bad for your health. Now we have proof.


Read the whole thing here.

 

[tothemax6]

World population continues to rise and is well past the point that adverse impacts become observable.
Too many people is ultimately the problem. All this "pollution control" stuff is really just trying to come up with ways of accommodating more and more people when you think about it.
If the population of the world was, say, 500 million then we wouldn't be having this discussion and all would be fine. That it is over 6 billion, all of them wanting a "first world" standard of living, is ultimately the problem.

You have skipped around my point - yes world population is increasing, first world population is decreasing (excluding non-first-world immigration). As I said, in much (if not all) of the first-world, birth rates are below replacement (thus the populations are naturally declining). The first world does not need population control - it has created its own ceiling through its culture.
It does not affect Australians if the populations of other countries balloons, and the world total increases as a result, whilst our population declines or remains stable - our resources remain. For us (and the US/Canada, and Europe etc), it would be fine. The only reason it will effect us is the political legitimization of immigration.

To be a real option nuclear requires that we stop throwing away almost all of the fuel, since there isn't enough of it to continue that way if nuclear power is to take an increasing role globally.
That means we have to start reprocessing uranium rather than the "throw away" nuclear cycle we have today.
The by-product of uranium reprocessing is plutonium.

And this is inefficient. As I say, people have a knack of finding better ways to do things - IF they are free to invest in those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

I'm not totally against nuclear energy. It has a valid role to play. Given the choice, I'd ramp up the use of nuclear at the global level in a fairly big way. But then I wouldn't want it in every country (I see no valid reason to use it in Australia, Indonesia or New Zealand) and I'd also be ramping up other energy sources too, specifically geothermal, hydro and to a lesser extent wind as well as unconventional fossil fuel technologies.

Then there's that little point that the pro-nuclear advocates hate. In this country at least, geothermal would almost certainly be cheaper and is equally functional. Rather than throwing $ billions at foreign equipment suppliers, we'd be far better off developing our own geothermal industry here at home.

See this is what I don't understand. Your explanations of 'I see no valid reason', 'I'd also be ramping up other energy sources', 'geothermal would almost be cheaper'.
Do you believe in the central planning of all resources and economic activity by the government (or even one man), or just energy? Markets (people freely buying and selling things they like) decide what sources of food, entertainment, transport etc will be present in society - why should energy be different?
And since geothermal is not illegal - the markets are already deciding if it is viable or not.

 

[derty]

There seems to be some conflict when surveys are carried out to determine the percentage of climate change scientist who believe climate change or global warming is man made. Someone is not telling the truth and uses certain surveys to suit their own ends. An investigation reveals how these surveys are used to make the "ALARMIST" look good in the eyes of the public and left wing politicians who use these surveys to substantiate their push for a carbon trading scheme which most of us now know will do little to reduce CO2 emmissions. What it will do is push up the cost of living.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

noco, did you actually read the pdf you linked to and think about the numbers they produced? Did you take the time to look at the link to the study they were commenting on?

It appears Bolt didn't either.

Dennis Ambler checks the statistics behind recently claims that 97 per cent of climate scientists believe man is heating the planet and finds evidence of some exaggeration:

However a headline of ”0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?

Er, no.

Ambler claims that the statement by Doran & Zimmerman that of 97% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate is misleading and that the actual number is only 0.73%. That is quite a difference of opinion. No?

The gross numbers of the Doran & Zimmerman survey are that an invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 chose to complete the survey, of those that chose to complete the survey 5% or approx 157 listed their discipline as climate science, of the identified climate scientists 79 stated that they were actively publishing papers mainly on climate change, of these 77 answered the question regarding humans causing climate change (question #2) with 75 answering in the affirmative.

Doran & Zimmerman went 75/77 = ~97% of climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change believe that humans are significantly contributing to climate change. Seems a valid claim to me, though a small population. Ambler has contradicted this and stated:

It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.

The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions.

WHAT??

Ambler has assumed is that the entirety of the remainder of the scientists who answered question #2 have answered no. So only 75/3146 = 2.83% actually think the answer to question #2 is yes.

Ambler then decides that all those who didn't respond to the survey would have voted no too. So actually only 75/10157 = 0.73% actually think the answer to question #2 is yes.



When in fact the linked Doran & Zimmerman article clearly states that 82% of the 3146 scientists that responded voted yes to question #2. Not 2.83%.

The attempt to include the 7011 who didn't respond on the grounds that they "wanted no part of it" is laughable. You can make no assumptions on their answers, they cannot be included in the survey. It isn't valid. I rarely choose to participate in surveys and a ~30% response rate is probably quite good.

That is some pretty fine reasoning there. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they are stupid. That, or someone is not telling the truth and uses certain surveys to suit their own ends.

The SPPI (and Bolt), refusing to let logic and facts get in the way of convenient figures. Way to go.

Here is the Doran & Zimmerman breakdown of question #2 that includes the results of a Gallop poll of the general pubic.

 

[IFocus]

You have skipped around my point - yes world population is increasing, first world population is decreasing (excluding non-first-world immigration). As I said, in much (if not all) of the first-world, birth rates are below replacement (thus the populations are naturally declining). The first world does not need population control - it has created its own ceiling through its culture.
It does not affect Australians if the populations of other countries balloons, and the world total increases as a result, whilst our population declines or remains stable - our resources remain. For us (and the US/Canada, and Europe etc), it would be fine. The only reason it will effect us is the political legitimization of immigration.

And this is inefficient. As I say, people have a knack of finding better ways to do things - IF they are free to invest in those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

See this is what I don't understand. Your explanations of 'I see no valid reason', 'I'd also be ramping up other energy sources', 'geothermal would almost be cheaper'.
Do you believe in the central planning of all resources and economic activity by the government (or even one man), or just energy? Markets (people freely buying and selling things they like) decide what sources of food, entertainment, transport etc will be present in society - why should energy be different?
And since geothermal is not illegal - the markets are already deciding if it is viable or not.

I think you missed an important point that Smurf keeps making is the move of large in fact very large populations want of 1st world living standards I remember a number of that's about 7 earths resources..................

 

[IFocus]

World population continues to rise and is well past the point that adverse impacts become observable.

Too many people is ultimately the problem. All this "pollution control" stuff is really just trying to come up with ways of accommodating more and more people when you think about it.

If the population of the world was, say, 500 million then we wouldn't be having this discussion and all would be fine. That it is over 6 billion, all of them wanting a "first world" standard of living, is ultimately the problem.


To be a real option nuclear requires that we stop throwing away almost all of the fuel, since there isn't enough of it to continue that way if nuclear power is to take an increasing role globally.

That means we have to start reprocessing uranium rather than the "throw away" nuclear cycle we have today.

The by-product of uranium reprocessing is plutonium.

There have always been wars. There are wars going on right now. We can't even stop the wars long enough just to be able to say there aren't any wars right now. And now we're suggesting that we give literally every country on earth which has electricity, and that is every country or just about, access to plutonium.

Commonsense sees a few problems with having plutonium become as available as raw coal, zinc concentrate or iron ore is today.

Then there's that little point that we don't actually know how we'll decommission these facilities when the time comes. 100 years from now, we'll quite likely still be dealing with nuclear issues from the 1950's. How can such an ever-increasing cost be sustained? We can't even maintain the relatively simple infrastructure (roads etc) we have now, without worrying about a few hundred years' legacy of nuclear sites.

I'm not totally against nuclear energy. It has a valid role to play. Given the choice, I'd ramp up the use of nuclear at the global level in a fairly big way. But then I wouldn't want it in every country (I see no valid reason to use it in Australia, Indonesia or New Zealand) and I'd also be ramping up other energy sources too, specifically geothermal, hydro and to a lesser extent wind as well as unconventional fossil fuel technologies.

Then there's that little point that the pro-nuclear advocates hate. In this country at least, geothermal would almost certainly be cheaper and is equally functional. Rather than throwing $ billions at foreign equipment suppliers, we'd be far better off developing our own geothermal industry here at home.

Really like your work Smurf

 

[IFocus]

I would agree re the politics but I do read most of the conservative journos / publications of which there are some excellent content and argument.

Bolt's political views I understand but the shock jock aspect of his commentary I find disturbing.

This is a business model used around the world as a sure money maker by a number of media organizations (call me a snob) that dum's down the issues along the lines FX expressed in the immigrant thread.

Its all very subtle but sucks in an awful lot of people.

Sorry for moving off topic but found this profound coming from such a conservative administration and the very thing that I feel about the likes of Bolt

US gunman kills six, wounds congresswoman

The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it occurring in Arizona.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8193897/us-politicians-shot-in-arizona-reports

 

[Smurf1976]

You have skipped around my point - yes world population is increasing, first world population is decreasing (excluding non-first-world immigration). As I said, in much (if not all) of the first-world, birth rates are below replacement (thus the populations are naturally declining). The first world does not need population control - it has created its own ceiling through its culture.
It does not affect Australians if the populations of other countries balloons, and the world total increases as a result, whilst our population declines or remains stable - our resources remain. For us (and the US/Canada, and Europe etc), it would be fine. The only reason it will effect us is the political legitimization of immigration.

If we are not affected by increasing global population then what on earth are spending time on this thread for?

The entire CO2 issue, well about 99% of it, is due to the actions of countries other than Australia. If we are not affected by the actions of others then there is absolutely nothing to worry about - not even the most hard line climate lobbyists are suggesting that Australia alone is burning enough coal to cause a problem.

But if CO2 is a problem then what the world does absolutely is our problem. And world population is increasing - that's OUR problem if you are worried about CO2.

Due to billions of people in China, India etc adopting a "first world" standard of living, CO2 emissions will continue to soar no matter what Australia, the US or any other "developed" country does. Now, either you are worried about CO2 or you are not - where it comes from makes no difference whatsoever to its impact.

See this is what I don't understand. Your explanations of 'I see no valid reason', 'I'd also be ramping up other energy sources', 'geothermal would almost be cheaper'.
Do you believe in the central planning of all resources and economic activity by the government (or even one man), or just energy? Markets (people freely buying and selling things they like) decide what sources of food, entertainment, transport etc will be present in society - why should energy be different?
And since geothermal is not illegal - the markets are already deciding if it is viable or not

If we are going to leave it to the market then I have no real problem with that. But face reality - the market has chosen coal and gas as the means to generate electricity.

That said, Australia is one of the few places where energy is NOT centrally planned to any real extent (though WA, SA, Victoria and especially Tasmania have done so to a significant extent in the past).

If you look at the nuclear industry in France, Japan or any other country with a high percentage of nuclear power then that is basically a consequence of central planning. Governments like nuclear, it's not something that private enterprise really wants to build (unless it's backed by government). Likewise hydro, wind and anything else that isn't coal, oil or natural gas is most commonly built either directly by or with the involvement of government. The market doesn't like renewables and it likes nuclear even less. The market likes gas and coal.

 

[wayneL]

Pielke Snr on the state of scientific discourse:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...d-h-douglass-kevin-trenberth-on-missing-heat/

SNIP:

My comment:

Kevin has apparently learned nothing from the released East Anglia e-mails. To refer to a published paper as “rubbish” without substantiating that claim is arrogant. This behaviour is what has gotten us to the politicization of climate science. A constructive way for Kevin Trenberth to respond would be to post a comment on Judy’s weblog that could then be debated, while he simultaneously prepares a rebuttal paper to the scientifically sound paper by Knox and Douglas.