Articles such as this can be used by Climate Change deniers

[kenneal - lagger]

If anyone thinks that we can carry on as usual and rely on renewables they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The change to a Zero Carbon economy requires complete rethink of the way that we manufacture and use raw materials and the way that we go about our lives.

Manufacture will have to change to the batch production of long lived, repairable goods from the mass production of throw away crap. We will have to stop travelling thousands of miles a year in two tonne steel monsters. If we build large numbers of electrric cars they will have to be of the G-Whizz sort rather than the big BMW, Tesla or Ferrari kind.

Travelling by air thousands of miles several times a year will not be something that can be done in the future and the small proportion of people in the UK who do that now will just have to get used to holidays in the UK again, possibly travelling by nice clean electric trains.

If we don't make those changes the whole economic system will break down as rising sea levels flood coastal cities, ports and nuclear power stations bringing the world's economic system to a halt.

The safety of nuclear power relies on the system maintaining business as usual. I doubt that we can guarantee that happening for more than the couple decades it would take to build Mr Schellenburger's new Nukes.

[woodburner]

It was made in 2013, but this information has not been mentioned much since, on MSM.

[kenneal - lagger]

The MSM is owned and run by the Kleptocracy who are the one's who will lose out in the amelioration of climate change problems so it is no surprise that the bad news isn't spread around to much. It is the Kleptocracy who pays for the anti climate change propaganda as well; all those big US fossil fuel companies for starters.

[vtsnowedin]

The MSM is owned and run by the Kleptocracy who are the one's who will lose out in the amelioration of climate change problems so it is no surprise that the bad news isn't spread around to much. It is the Kleptocracy who pays for the anti climate change propaganda as well; all those big US fossil fuel companies for starters.

Including British petroleum I suppose?

[Little John]

BP may be headquartered in the UK. But, it's a multinational corporation and is as much American-owned as it is British-owned. The British hold 40 percent of BP shares, while the Americans hold 39 percent. JPMorgan Chase owns 28 percent of BP, while BlackRock owns 8 percent. These companies are largely stateless. Though they often base their managerial operations in either the US or UK and have also co-opted the political class of these countries to do their bidding when they need a country bringing to heel via bombing, orchestrated coups, invasion etc.

[woodburner]

Is the BBC owned by the kleptocracy? It comes under the category of MSM I would suggest. In which case why did it have such large exposure of school children walking out of school in protest against the claimed lack of action by governments, to deal with global warming, oops sorry, climate change. What do we have? Europe paying huge amounts to do precious little (money out of everybodys’ pockets) and China and India carrying on as normal, and negating European moves by many times.

There is the hypocracy that the students are the very group who are arguably one of the groups contributing significantly to the problem. They tend to want new things more frequently than adults, clothes worn a few times then disgarded, mobile phones changed for the latest model at every upgrade opportunity. Literally burning out tyres and leaving interesting rubber streaks on the roads. To mention a few.

I still question the claimed “science�, (you know, that settled stuff which must never be questioned), when I come across things like this that show a possible mechanism for increases and decreases in temperature in the short term, as opposed to geological time.

[vtsnowedin]

BP may be headquartered in the UK. But, it's a multinational corporation and is as much American-owned as it is British-owned. The British hold 40 percent of BP shares, while the Americans hold 39 percent. JPMorgan Chase owns 28 percent of BP, while BlackRock owns 8 percent. These companies are largely stateless. Though they often base their managerial operations in either the US or UK and have also co-opted the political class of these countries to do their bidding when they need a country bringing to its heels via bombing, orchestrated coups, invasion etc.

And can not the same multinational label be applied to Exxon, shell, and chevron? The big bad USA persecuting you Brits theme doesn't really hold much water.

[kenneal - lagger]

........ And can not the same multinational label be applied to Exxon, shell, and chevron? The big bad USA persecuting you Brits theme doesn't really hold much water.

They are not just persecuting us, they're persecuting everyone including you US nationals. They're certainly taking you for a bigger ride than they are taking us with all the subsidies and tax breaks that they get from the US government.

[woodburner]

Installers of wind turbines and solar panels of course could not be taking people for a ride as they get such small subsidies and aren’t causing a large increase in electricity prices. Ask the Germans and you might get another opinion.

[kenneal - lagger]

Installers of wind turbines and solar panels of course could not be taking people for a ride as they get such small subsidies and aren’t causing a large increase in electricity prices. Ask the Germans and you might get another opinion.

Subsidies? The biggest subsidy going is for nuclear with a strike price of about £92/Mw hr plus an allowance for inflation. (I might have my units wrong there but the money is right) The price that anyone else gets is way below this and wind is now cheaper than gas to generate from what I've heard. So, no, solar and wind are not causing price rises. On the contrary, any new nuclear will cause price to rocket.

You've been so wrapped up in your rubbish conspiracy websites recently, Woodburner, that you haven't seen all the news about renewables companies complaining about the massive reduction in FITS and how their businesses are being destroyed while nuclear and gas get huge tax breaks to make them competitive.

[PS_RalphW]

TBH we need dispatchable (ie on-demand) electricity supply to fill in the gaps when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. That race is between batteries and NG at the moment, with tidal being a distant third.

Nuclear is not dispatchable. It is on all the time or not at all. It is an awful option to back up renewables.

[kenneal - lagger]

.............. It is an awful option to back up renewables.

It is an awful option!!!!!

[woodburner]

Installers of wind turbines and solar panels of course could not be taking people for a ride as they get such small subsidies and aren’t causing a large increase in electricity prices. Ask the Germans and you might get another opinion.

Subsidies? The biggest subsidy going is for nuclear with a strike price of about £92/Mw hr plus an allowance for inflation. (I might have my units wrong there but the money is right) The price that anyone else gets is way below this and wind is now cheaper than gas to generate from what I've heard. So, no, solar and wind are not causing price rises. On the contrary, any new nuclear will cause price to rocket.

You've been so wrapped up in your rubbish conspiracy websites recently, Woodburner, that you haven't seen all the news about renewables companies complaining about the massive reduction in FITS and how their businesses are being destroyed while nuclear and gas get huge tax breaks to make them competitive.

Actually I keep getting pointed to your rubbish website run by John Cook. And WTF is a “conspiracy� website. Do stop your silly nonsense about very one who doesn’t agree with you must be wrong. You might be right, and then again you might not. Science is never settled, and it is never consensus. Facts are not decided by people voting for something. Or going down the pub so you can have a pleasant evening with people who agree with you.

[kenneal - lagger]

..................You might be right, and then again you might not.

It's not a question of whether I'm right or not or whether you are it's a question of what the science says and the overwhelming voice of the science says that the climate is warming and that man is causing it.

Science is never settled, and it is never consensus. Facts are not decided by people voting for something. ...

The science is never settled but it is agreed, Woodburner. You wouldn't say that we shouldn't be using electricity because the science isn't settled would you? Maybe you would!! Science is peer reviewed and if agreed acted upon. Science decided electricity works and that information is now used. Science has decided on Climate Change/Global Warming by the very same methods that electricity was decided on so we should now act on it or should we park electricity because "the science is settled"?

Every new discovery in the field of climate science points further in the same direction; that the climate is warming and that man is causing it. You claim that 3% of climate scientists are against anthropomorphic climate change but you still haven't quoted one in your arguments. Indeed in your last few posts you haven't even quoted any science, you have just resorted to giving your personal, uneducated opinion on the scientific website that I quote from and calling me and my opinions "silly." And you were complaining a few posts ago that I was attacking you and name calling!

Your uneducated, personal opinions are of no interest to the vast majority of people on this forum so I suggest that until your can find any scientific backing from people working in the field of Climate Change/Global Warming you just keep quiet about the subject. There is plenty of other stuff that you can usefully contribute to.

[kenneal - lagger]

........I still question the claimed “science�, (you know, that settled stuff which must never be questioned), when I come across things like this that show a possible mechanism for increases and decreases in temperature in the short term, as opposed to geological time.

I was willing to go along with some of that, although we have had volcanic eruptions since almost the beginning of the earth but not such a rapid spike in temperatures to rival the current one as far as I'm aware, until I came across his claim that " that reduction of CFC emissions mandated by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer led to the global warming hiatus from 1998 to 2013".

There was no hiatus in warming from 1998 to 2013; it is a falsehood commonly used by the climate denial community to try to confuse people. There was an El Nino event in 1998 which caused, as they usually do, a large increase in temperature so that when the El Nino dissipated the temperature dropped to normal the next year, as they usually do. The warming trend continued after that and in 2013 the temperature exceeded the extraordinary El Nino year temperature but without the El Nino.

So Peter Langdon Ward goes into Room 101 as far as I'm concerned along with all the other non climate scientists who don't really know what they are talking about on climate science. Yes, there have been super massive eruptions in the past which have effected the world's climate on a long term basis but nothing on that scale in recent millennia; nothing that has lasted for more than a few years.