BLACKOUT BRITAIN FACES BIG TURN OFF

The problem of nuclear waste has seen great strides. Much of it can now be recycled!

I like how in you used a quote from Monckton himself. I will engage in your articles but it will take some time.

For now I will only point out that seeing as people can clearly not be experts in every scientific field within the scope of their lifetime, scientific consensus is a necessity. And when the decision comes down to hundreds of people with actual people with qualifications in a field against people with no qualifications in the field, guess whos side I'm taking.

Even if you believe global warming is a fact, and I do believe the Earth is getting warmier, there simply isn't enough data to say conclusively that the extent of man's contribution of co2 is the only cause, and what scientis say we must do to reverse it is simply not realistic to achieve without extreme hardship. Worse, what government proposes, carbon credits trading, does absolutely NOTHING to reduce emissions to a level to have any effect on the Earth's temperature, and that is the crux of Monckton's objections. Even a leading globalm warmiong advocate recently admitted if every single coal fired plant was shut down and every single car was taken off the road, they still wouldn't achieve the necessary carbon reduction goals. Now I ask you, is that realistic?

The best we can do is buy time until we develop some kind of "holy grail" energy technology. The effects of global warming can be mitigated in the long run even if they can't be totally negated. And don't pretend that humans have nothing to do with it; surely you can't think it's a coincidence that the most rapid warming period on record happens at the same time that humanity begins to extract and combust Earth's entire hydrocarbon resources for energy production across the globe?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm

"While there is some uncertainty on current polar bear population trends, one thing is certain. No sea ice means no seals which means no polar bears. With Arctic sea ice retreating at an accelerating rate, the polar bear is at grave risk of extinction"



Don't care. Not relevant.



Because rich nations refused to to agree to anything meaningful.




And he was cleared... https://www.ft.com/cms/s/44a0a92c-3a8e-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F44a0a92c-3a8e-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRajendra_Pachauri



Gives no support for its claim...



Not only is that a biased claim and a slippery slope fallacy but what it is arguing is highly contested.



Again highly contested but either way irrelevant to climate science.



Emissions have risen but to claim that it was therefore meaningless is a leap especially considering carbon trading schemes were only recently created in most countries.




Citation needed...



The ballot followed declining ratings for the Labor Party and Prime Minister after numerous policy decisions, including problems with the Home Insulation Program, a significant delay to a planned carbon emissions reduction scheme,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_election,_2010

To all climate deniers... Don't you ever get tired of being wrong. Seriously you people are even better fodder than creationists.

If you examine ice core data from south pole samples that represent 400,000 years of history, you'll see a definite and regular pattern of cooling and warming associated with levels of co2 in the atmosphere, though you can't prove cause and effect. What you will notice is that we are currently at a peak in that cycle. It's quite possible that this warming trend will reverse. Thirty years ago they thought we were entering a new ice age!

We definitely need further study. There's much we don't know, and for government to act hastily by taxing people for carbon use and trasfering wealth from rich nations to poor nations on the backs of the middle class in an effort to right some imagined wrong is just, well, wrong!

Personally, I'm all for green energy, like wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric, because the more of it we use, the less oil we buy from the middle east..

And the money we give to the middle east for oil, is the money that terrorists use to attack us.

So, I'm all for using less oil, if only to keep the money out of the terrorists hands.

Do the temperature and CO2 levels fluctuate significantly every 150 years? Because that really isn't an apparent trend in recent history, for which temperature records are more accurate.

150 years of data is not enough to establis a trend, particularly when the cycle over the last 400,000 years has been 10,000 years.

We have proxy data for the last 2,000 years. Combining proxy data from a number of sources such as ice and mud cores, tree rings, coral growth, cave deposits etc. the general picture that emerges shows that, in the last 150 years, the CO2 content and temperature of Earth's atmosphere have increased more rapidly than at any other time in the rest of the temperature record, are now higher than ever. The predicted effects on sea levels and oceanic acidity, habitat destruction, desertification, rainfall patterns and so on are so catastrophic that it's clear this kind of warming doesn't appear to have happened recently, or we would be able to see its effects. The best explanation for all this is that the increase in CO2 caused by the extraction and combustion of most of Earth's hydrocarbons has resulted in a greenhouse effect.

We use oil in electric production?

Again you are predicting the effects of higher temperatures and projecting those temperatures based upon co2 content in the air. But are cause and effect established without question? Is the Earth getting warmer because there is more co2 in the air OR is there more co2 in the air because the Earth is getting warmer?

Burning hydrocarbon fuels produces CO2 as a waste product. Humans have probably already extracted and combusted most of the hydrocarbon resources on Earth in the last 150 years. This rapid and sudden unnatural energy conversion has resulted in a higher atmospheric CO2 content than at any time on record. It would be remarkable if the amount of CO2 released by fuel combustion over the last 150 years has had no significant effect of atmospheric CO2 levels, which has in fact increased because of some unknown process caused by a naturally rising global temperature.

Well I don't know for sure and I don't believe anyone does.

Nobody knows for sure, but the scientific community is very confident that it has collected enough evidence to justify recommending drastic measures.