Emission Trading and climate change

Originally Posted by Marc

How much is all this costing us? Anyone done the maths? ... how many trillions thrown to the wind?

According to the International Monetary Fund: "Governments around the world will subsidise the cost of oil, gas and coal to the tune of US$5.3 trillion this year".

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7c651...#axzz3pfpE6EaZ

To put that in perspective, "for all people on earth to have access to fresh water would cost US$190 billion, US$370 billion could cover universal access to sanitation, and US$430 billion could finance access to electricity".

Fossil fuel subsidies? Or water, power, sanitation for all | Assemble Papers

Oh, absolutely.
However there is such thing as opportunity cost ... you can spend money to fuel the ego of a group of cretins that are "in charge" due to another bunch of cretins voting them, or you can spend on infrastructure that does not make distinctions between the left and the right... but not for both. Decisions decisions ...

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Human society has invested heavily in ignorance for centuries.

The vatican should be proof enough!

Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D

'Only way to a positive scenario is innovation'

Gates says renewables are rubbish. Probably won't win over the Linux fanciers.

26 Jun 2015 at 15:03, Lewis Page

Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates has given his opinion that today's renewable-energy technologies aren't a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert their green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers.

Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday, saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be "beyond astronomical". At present very little power comes from renewables: in the UK just 5.2 per cent, the majority of which is dubiously-green biofuel burning1 rather than renewable 'leccy - and even so, energy bills have surged and will surge further as a result.

In Bill Gates' view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead. This would offer a chance of developing low-carbon technologies which actually can keep the lights on in the real world.

“The only way you can get to the very positive scenario is by great innovation,” he told the pink 'un. “Innovation really does bend the curve.”
Gates says he'll personally put his money where his mouth is. He's apparently invested $1bn of his own cash in low-carbon energy R&D already, and “over the next five years, there’s a good chance that will double,” he said.

The ex-software overlord stated that the Guardian's scheme of everyone refusing to invest in oil and gas companies would have "little impact". He also poured scorn on another notion oft-touted as a way of making renewable energy more feasible, that of using batteries to store intermittent supplies from solar or wind.

“There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables," he said, pointing out - as we've noted on these pages before - that it's necessary "to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind."
So what are the possible answers, in Gates' view?

Gates is already well known as a proponent of improved nuclear power tech, and it seems he still is. He mentioned the travelling-wave reactors under development by his firm TerraPower, which are intended to run on depleted uranium stockpiled after use in conventional reactors. He also spoke of methods of using solar power to produce liquid hydrocarbons, which, unlike electricity, can be stored practicably in useful amounts: "one of the few energy storage things that works at scale", as he put it.
Gates also spoke of the radical plan of high-altitude wind farming using kite-balloons flying high up in the jet stream - though he admitted that that one was something of a long shot.
In Gates' view, decades from now a few of today's new-energy companies will have become massive and early investors will have reaped the sort of rewards that he, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer have from Microsoft. But many others won't be so lucky.
"Now there’s a tonne of software companies whose names will never be remembered," he told the FTinterviewers.
Analysis

Gates has said a lot of this before. The main new thing is the firm assertion that renewable energy technology as it now is has no chance of powering a reasonably numerous and well-off human race. This is actually a very simple thing to work out, and just about anybody numerate who thinks about the subject honestly comes to the same conclusion - examples include your correspondent, Google renewables experts, global-warming daddy James Hansen, even your more honest hardline greens (they typically think that the answer is for the human race to become a lot less numerous and well-off).

Unfortunately a lot of people aren't numerate and/or aren't honest, so it's far from sure that the colossal subsidies pumped into today's useless renewables will get diverted into R&D which could produce something worthwhile. In the UK at least this would be quite difficult, as the subsidies are not actually subsidies as such - no tax money is paid out to windfarmers and solar-panellists from the Treasury.

Rather, the system works by artificially pumping up the price of 'leccy and gas and channelling the extra cash - minus various margins for various people involved - to the windfarmers and panel people, such that they get paid vastly more than the market price of the power they produce.

A lot of people - including the government at times - prefer to pretend that this isn't happening at all: that prices are going up because of the gas market, or corporate profiteering, or something, and that green policy is actually saving people money in some way.

So given that officially nobody is paying any more money and therefore there aren't any subsidies, they probably can't be diverted to anywhere. The newly-reelected Chancellor is trying to stop them getting bigger, but he probably won't manage to seriously reduce them overall, let alone re-purpose them. ®
Bootnote

1DUKES chapter 1 (pdf page 1) and chapter 6 (pdf page 4)

Originally Posted by Marc

Gates says renewables are rubbish.

Funny person for you to quote, Marc. I guess integrity is not a strong point for AGW deniers.

Bill Gates: "Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’"

http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/

Oh, and what does Bill Gates invest in that he doesn't want everyone to know about? Geoengineering, of course - that and the $billion or so he has invested in fossil energy companies. So Bill Gates is hedging his bets, hoping to make a killing either way.

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering | Environment | The Guardian

Originally Posted by johnc

Gates is one of a few genuine people in the world who actually gives a stuff about others and backs it up, everyone is flawed and we shouldn't assume anyone is perfect but Gates on balance will leave a positive legacy.

I am not so sure that I like Gates' attitude to nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, geoengineering, etc. When you look at it closely, Gates often has strings attached to his 'philanthropy' so much so that it has been dubbed 'Philanthro-capitalism'. And I think outside of money, some of Gates' motivation is just 'conscience cleansing' after his less than noble corporate behaviour that found his company convicted of anti-trust breaches.

The flip side to Bill Gates' charity billions -- New Internationalist

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

well, if he's anti GMO, then you have an argument, because anti GMO is typical anti science - no different to global warming denial

I cannot agree with you on that issue. There is an abundance of scientific evidence cautioning against GMO.

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

Nature and scientific American make it painfully clear that climate change is science and not opinion. Similarly, both organisations make it clear that GMO is not bad.

Er... no they do not. Re-read your links without the blinkers...

Perhaps you could start a new thread on GMO and leave this one for 'emission trading'

Funny how some people here repeat the same banal hackneyed at nauseam as if it was some sharp comment.
Bill Gates said: Renewable energy can't do the job. Governments should switch green subsidies into research and development ...
What on earth does it matter whatever else Bill Gate may have said, where he invest his money or if he kissed his cousin?

I post comments from people i respect when they happen to say things I agree with. If Bill Gates says communism is the answer to Global warming, or Christian Science has the answer to baldness, I don't post it and that opinion as aberrant as may be has no bearing on the opinion that makes sense.
A drunk can state as a matter of fact that drinking is bad for your health. And then drink himself do death. His statement is still valid.

The only possible answer to a post from BG that says renewables are rubbish, is to post an analysis as to why you think BG is wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT, not that his fart stink too much therefore he is wrong in relation to renewables.
This eternal repetition of side morsels made in an attempt to discredit the messenger rather than addressing the point is absolutely stale.
In fact it is past stale, it stinks.

Originally Posted by Marc

The only possible answer to a post from BG that says renewables are rubbish, is to post an analysis as to why you think BG is wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT

Bill Gates is wrong because are already examples in the world that prove him wrong - Denmark for example, and even poor old cot-case South Australia.

Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read your analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.

A wind generator can be feathered, but coal fired and nuclear power stations cannot be feathered. They sit there burning fuel and heating cooling water all night waiting for the next days demand -- unfortunately that is what you have to do when you rely on 18th century 'boiling water' technology for energy. Pity about the planet and the people who live on it, though!

Oh and since when is wind 'unpredictable'? As long as the Sun shines and the Earth turns, there will be wind.

Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read your analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?

Total nonsense as usual. I choose articles that state what I think is right. No need to add some amateurish comment. Furthermore I don't constantly rubbish the authors of what you copy and post in an attempt to discredit their character. That is my criticism. The constant pathetic scrutiny of the authors' character or past peccadilloes completely irrelevant to the topic.
The reality is that renewable as they are today are a cash cow for crook government and mafia enterprise to buy votes and favours. An opportunity for greens and lefties to drum up allegiancy and support under the false pretence of altruism and greater good. Renewables market is a dirty and corrupt as any other energy market has ever been. To pretend it is not because it is "clean" is to believe in the faries in the bottom of the garden red riding hood, sleeping beauty and cinderella all at once.
And we pay for it. Those who work and produce pay, those who talk hot air and ask for subsidies spend what we earn.
The day of reckoning will be big and painful.

Originally Posted by Marc

No need to add some amateurish comment.

I would not know if your comments would be amateurish, because you rarely add any comments to the diarrhoea of unthinking garbage you paste.

So just more of the 'Do as I say, not as I do" it is. Thanks for the clarification, and the acknowledgement 'I choose articles that state what I think is right' - irrespective of falsehoods and inconsistencies. Integrity is not relevant to your posting activity, apparently.

Originally Posted by Marc

I don't constantly rubbish the authors of what you copy and post in an attempt to discredit their character.

What utter rot! You are trying to posit that you have never bagged, well let's see, Rudd, Gillard, Suzuki, Gore, Nye, Flanagan, Mann... Come off it Marc, your slip is showing...

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap.

Yet Denmark has much cheaper electricity for industry than most European states, and cheaper than France whose primary source of electricity is 'low cost' nuclear: Denmark 0.088, France 0.091.

Not often you see the realities before us spelled out so clearly for our climate change denier mates:

Originally Posted by Tamino

Cover your eyes so you can’t see! Don’t look at what happened before, or what came after! Don’t even think about what’s really going to happen — believe the fairy tales that it’s all a hoax, that everything is going to be fine, that we shouldn’t interfere.

Remind you of anyone here?

Originally Posted by woodbe

Remind you of anyone here?

The temperature is pretty normal around Sydney, plus there's a spot on the tip of Antarctica that as cold as ever, ergo global warming is a scam!

French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless


The hard sciences are less and less fooled by the charade of sciencey fear mongering (unlike some psychologists). It is great to see scientific groups speaking out, though we know this PDF, which was first published on the 24th of August 2015, will be ignored by the ABC, BBC, and CBC science propaganda teams. Not the right message.
The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, in France has issued a long in depth white paper on climate change:
“The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade”
http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

“The battle against global warming“ 195 page PDF The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious.There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘“Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated.”

The English Translation of the Calculation Mathematical Society, SA web page. SCM was established in 1987, by University professor, Dr. Bernard Beauzamy. Their “first specialty” is mathematical modeling.
A few excerpts of this long paper below
Summary

All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming.
The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.
The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?
At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.
But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.
Part 1: The facts

Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.
Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.
Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‗virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‗energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.
Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless
If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way.
This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

I. Conclusion

On reading through this list, one has the feeling that human activity and civilization affect the climate in every possible way, and clearly in a negative sense. But after a littleconsideration one realizes that that is true for all species, both animals and plants. Everylifeform influences its environment, and to call this influence ―negative‖ is a biaseddecision.A recent article in Science et Vie [Chauveau] explains that ―French cows emit as much gasin a year as 15 million automobiles!‖ What then? Should cows be killed? Should automobilesbe banned?It is a very one-sided process to list human activities and then for each one to check itsenvironmental impact, presented as something negative. This approach is essentially dishonest.

Any animal species modifies its ecosystem, so we see no reason why human beings should be banned from building towns because it is warmer in them. Penguins toogather in vast troops to limit heat loss – should they be banned from doing so?II. Can human beings change the climate?What would be the consequences of a sudden halt to human activities? As we have seen inthe preceding sections, human influence on the greenhouse effect and the albedo is veryweak, almost negligible. Even though this influence is negligible, many try to reduce it.However, do we have the ability to do so?

For many environmental problems, we have a tendency to apply simple logic: once we stop the disturbance the problem will stabilize and things will get back to ―normal‖. Forexample, when there are high levels of fine particulate pollution near a highway, limitingtraffic may solve the problem.147SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/09Are we in a similar situation with greenhouse gas emissions? We are tempted to think so—if the situation gets out of hand, we merely need to cut emissions drastically (assuming thatthat is possible) and the climate will ―recover‖ by itself.Unfortunately that is impossible, and there is a simple explanation: the lifespan of the greenhouse gases in question (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons) is much greater than the timescales that interest us.

The lifespans of the main greenhouse gases are given below:
Gas Lifespan (years)Methane 12CO2 100Nitrous oxide 114Sulfur hexafluoride 3,200Perfluorocarbons 2,600 to 50,000Table 2:
Lifespans of the main greenhouse gases (source: IPCC)

In practice, if we completely stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow morning (including breathing), the only effect it would have would be to make CO2 levels in the atmosphere fall very slowly.There is also a fundamental error of logic in this approach, which is to believe that natureis stable and that only human activities alter this stability.
For example, one might believe that there is a natural, stable level for CO2 which human activities have disturbed. That idea is essentially false: there is of course a CO2 cycle, in which CO2 is constantly being made, stored, and used. Human emissions are not added to this cycle; they are part of it.Even if human beings were so stupid as to want to do so, they have no technological meansto change the composition of the atmosphere. The ―carbon sequestration‖ schemes that weoften hear about are childish inanities that have no effect. Nor do they have any means toalter the composition or temperature of the oceans, the albedo of the Earth, etc.

Here is an example of a measure that no minister has yet thought of: to increase the albedo and reduce the greenhouse effect, one could ask the whole population of France, including the women, to shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them!
Another measure in the same vein would be to implement an alternate-day traffic scheme. only people with varnished pates would have the right to go out on very sunny days. The reflectivity of their heads would be checked annually with a special instrument based on the principle of frequency-domain reflectometry. They would also enjoy a special privilegecalled the ―albedo tax credit‖. Other, hairy people, especially women, would only be allowedout at night, or on rainy days by special dispensation; they would be subject to a taxsurcharge proportional to the thickness of their hair

Originally Posted by Marc

French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless

Ah, yes. The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA; the organisation with the name confusingly meant to sound like a the real academic mathematical representative body in France the Société de Mathématiques Appliquées, the organisation with the headquarters in a rented office on the second floor above a jeweller and a frock shop, the organisation that claims to be a "not for profit' organisation, but is in fact a public limited company doing paid work in research and development for the energy industry in France, the organisation who's CEO writes a load of pseudo scientific gibberish without attributing a single author or providing any sources for his claims and fronts it as a "science paper" - is that the one, Marc? And who gives a cr*p about what he says, other than the Boltwattanova blogdysentery denier-sphere.

Originally Posted by Marc

Here is an example of a measure that no minister has yet thought of: to increase the albedo and reduce the greenhouse effect, one could ask the whole population of France, including the women, to shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them!

Marc, you claim to be citing this a 'serious' discussion. Pasting this sort of absurdity does not help your case, it simply shows up your star writer as the dissimulator he is. But don't take my word for it; read his 'paper' for yourself: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

About 10% of Iceland's surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers. About 11 billion tons of ice per year is being lost due to global warming. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also causing the island to rise at around 35 mm per year. During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across Iceland increased as much as 30-fold.

The current pace of uplift is likely to cause an equivalent of one Eyjafjallajökull-scale volcanic blow every seven years. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere and led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe in 2010 and caused many damaging electrical storms.

It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...

Volcanoes and Climate Change: How They're Linked

Originally Posted by Marc

I choose articles that state what I think is right. The constant pathetic scrutiny of the authors' character or past peccadilloes completely irrelevant to the topic.

If you don’t like people pointing out the association of your 'sources' to ridiculousness, stop quoting ridiculous sources. You can’t have it both ways.

For those interested, here are the sources for my post here: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...31/#post989786


Here is the website of the society that is representative of applied mathematicians and academia in France: [SMAI]


Here is the website of the similarly sounding non academic Société de Calcul Mathématique SA: http://www.scmsa.eu


Here is the location of the registered office of the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (you can see the plaque on the door): https://www.google.com/maps/place/So...3e5266!6m1!1e1


Here is where the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA claims to be “not for profit”: SCM, SA : présentation


Here you can see the company’s structure and financial position: https://translate.googleusercontent....L5OM8iZzbzrT3g


Here you can see that the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA work is almost entirely in the defence and energy industries: Les fiches de compétence de la SCM


Here you can read the paper and see for yourself it is devoid of attributions for its claims and full of logical fallacies that even a child can see through: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering. Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words)

so it's not a no brainer, it's speculative research and mostly comment.

Are you talking about the conclusions of the old book, or have you read the new study which has been accepted for publication (peer reviewed) but is yet to be published? Science does move on.

Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read.
http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there. It would be twice as interesting if one can be found without the usual litany of irrelevant information like where the office is located, who is selling what at ground level (yes, support for alternative points of view is usually way less generous than the mainstream funding comfortably located in government offices funded by the usual suckers.... for now anyway) ... perhaps also omitting the name of the organisation with allusions to intentional misleading due to identity confusion, (called libel) or perhaps the culinary habits of the doorman or his wife's dog.

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering. Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words)

What is the book title and author? Is it a novel dressed up as science, a printed copy of a peer reviewed science paper, or is it a textbook?

Usually, published science runs ahead of books about science. Well, except when the CC deniers publish, they just reshape the history to suit their ideology.

One paper does not turn over the established science, but I don't think we are in that category. The science has been published about ice loss data ad nauseum. As we get more data, we get more accurate information and more useful predictions. See the WGMS: latest glacier mass balance data – world glacier monitoring service

Originally Posted by Marc

Is the battle against "global warming" absurd costly and pointless, yes or no.

Yes it's costly. Pointless depends entirely on your point of view.

For instance, I know that recreational boating is costly but I also believe it is pointless....

But is the 'battle against global warming' pointless (in my view)? My response is.....mostly yes. But then it is but a battle...not a war.

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

but you didn't link a paper, so how could I, you linked an opinionated piece written by what seems to be a journalist

Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected science magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.

Originally Posted by Marc

An argument ad hominem is a low and useless argument that only shows lack of authority or imagination.

So why do you make ad hominem statements against your 'opponents' in this forum?

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Yes it's costly. Pointless depends entirely on your point of view.

For instance, I know that recreational boating is costly but I also believe it is pointless....

But is the 'battle against global warming' pointless (in my view)? My response is.....mostly yes. But then it is but a battle...not a war.

Economic activity is economic activity. It doesn't much matter whether its changing to renewable energy sources or digging fossil energy out of a hole in the ground. Wealth, on the other hand, is accumulated when resources do not need to be continually consumed to maintain the status quo. One could argue that the creation of wealth is a strong argument to deal with CO2 emissions by moving to renewable energy.

The battle against anthropogenic caused global warming has already been lost as far as the maintenance of a human habitable environment on the scale of centuries. Most people in environmental and climate science already know this but don't acknowledge it publicly, because of the derision the dominantly denier owned world media causes.

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

Time magazine is a respected science magazine?

My mistake, sorry. Mental disfunction LOL. I had in my mind that it was another journal.

I should have written:


Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.


There, it's all correct now.

Ha ha good try.
I think you must check the meaning of my words ... say Oxford dictionary ?

Originally Posted by Marc

Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read.
http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there.

It is not a scientific paper. A collection of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of other people's work and data does not warrant a scientific response, indeed one would not be possible.

if the 'climate sceptics' are correct and know that the whole AGW thing is a scam, why don't they publish?

I am not talking about unqualified people publishing - there is plenty of that on at Heartland and on Nova, Watts and innumerable other copycat blogs. Where are the papers from the qualified researchers who know it is a scam? They can't claim there are no journals for them to publish in, because journals have been created specifically and especially as an avenue to subvert normal scientific peer review process, such as 'The Open Atmospheric Society', 'Energy and Environment', and 'The Open journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change", plus there are journals that will publish anything for a fee: Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee : Shots - Health News : NPR

Yet still the 'sceptical' scientists don't publish scientific articles offering alternative theories of climate change. The number of articles published (whether scientific or not) in journals such as these and others represents less than 0.01% of research papers published on climate change.

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

And wasn't that on the basis of an article in Time magazine, about a paper that you haven't access to, and haven't read?

Correct. And one I didn't offer an opinion on, although you did. Opinion is fine, but best reserved to things known, not unknown.