it isn't all bad news

[Outrider]

It isn't about if we have wind or not it is about whether we have the right intensity of wind to make the wind farms efficient, and we don't; or rarely don't in England at least. Only the upper part of Scotland is any good for this and perhaps parts of Wales.

You can tailor your turbines to suit the wind - the problem we have in the UK is the variability of the wind. That said, they're still a viable contributor to the grid, particularly the smaller, domestic units. Personally I don't have a problem with the larger ones, but I know that there's a strong movement against them on aesthetic grounds.

Turning the other sources of energy up and down to cater for this is costly and inefficient, and nuclear plants take a long time to build etc.

Whether or not it's costly to vary the output of other plants is largely dependent upon whether they were built to be variable supplies or consistent - most are built to be consistent, because we don't have a well-planned method for approving and commissioning suppliers.

Nuclear plants do take longer to build, yes, but they also have a much longer productive lifespan, are off-line significantly less and are immeasurably less polluting (which is the major issue, at the moment, in energy production).

Yet we are pulling down viable gas fired plants that do a good enough job!!!

The environmental costs of continuing to utilise fossil fuels, though, is considerable - if it weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all, we'd continue with coal, gas and oil.

O.

[Jack Knave]

Actually, nuclear is a poor complement to renewables. Ideally, on a windy or sunny day all your power would come from wind turbines or solar panels, but when there is a shortfall, you need power stations that you can turn on and off quickly - gas turbines are the best example of this. Nuclear stations have to be on all the time and, if that is the case, you might as well not bother with the wind and solar.

In reality, the best plan is a mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels as back up to the renewables.

Turning gas fired plants up and down is costly and creates more green house gases thereby negating any gains from renewables. Better to just use the gas fired plants and have a minor array of renewables for old time sake and as something quaint 

Of course utilising solar energy is just common sense and researching efficient ways to store the electricity. It is also common sense to be as locally independent as possible using solar.

[Jack Knave]

However as an alternative to a battery, fuel cells have good potential. I think that is the future.

What about fusion?

[Jack Knave]

Relying on gas is insane unless you want to see the lights go out. The supply isn't reliable enough. That's without the environmental aspect.

Why?

[Jack Knave]

The environmental costs of continuing to utilise fossil fuels, though, is considerable - if it weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all, we'd continue with coal, gas and oil.

O.

That's a matter of opinion as to whether global warming has been caused predominately by man's activities.

[Outrider]

That's a matter of opinion as to whether global warming has been caused predominately by man's activities.

Every statement is 'a matter of opinion'. Opinions, though, are like arseholes. In this instance, however, this is not merely 'a matter of opinion'; it's a matter of scientific record.

It's no more a matter of opinion than the existence of the Higgs Boson as an explanation for gravity or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution.

The overwhelming scientific consensus of the climatologists who make it their life's work to study climate is that human influences have significantly affected the Earth's climate, and will continue to do so unless we take action in the very near future.

O.

[Jack Knave]

Every statement is 'a matter of opinion'. Opinions, though, are like arseholes. In this instance, however, this is not merely 'a matter of opinion'; it's a matter of scientific record.

It's no more a matter of opinion than the existence of the Higgs Boson as an explanation for gravity or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution.

The overwhelming scientific consensus of the climatologists who make it their life's work to study climate is that human influences have significantly affected the Earth's climate, and will continue to do so unless we take action in the very near future.

O.

The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. What they say is an opinion of scientific work paid for by them, and as such has its usual biases and political pressures to achieve certain results or aims. The issue isn't whether climate change is going on but whether it is a product or outcome of man's activities.

[Hope]

The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. What they say is an opinion of scientific work paid for by them, and as such has its usual biases and political pressures to achieve certain results or aims. The issue isn't whether climate change is going on but whether it is a product or outcome of man's activities.

JK, I know of a number of climate scientists who have done studies and surveys without as uch as a penny's funding from Government or the IPCC.  The IPCC tends to take totally independent research projects, studies their results and comes to a conclusion based on those results.

[Hope]

That's a matter of opinion as to whether global warming has been caused predominately by man's activities.

In fact, JK, the 'matter of opinion' argument has largely been shown to be wrong, as an increasing number of events match predictions made as long ago as 25 and 30 years.

[Jack Knave]

In fact, JK, the 'matter of opinion' argument has largely been shown to be wrong, as an increasing number of events match predictions made as long ago as 25 and 30 years.

What? Temperatures have levelled off, whereas the predictions said it was going to keep on going up.

[Outrider]

The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. What they say is an opinion of scientific work paid for by them, and as such has its usual biases and political pressures to achieve certain results or aims. The issue isn't whether climate change is going on but whether it is a product or outcome of man's activities.

And if the IPCC were the only people making this claim you might have a point, but they aren't, are they? Admittedly, it took me nearly 8 seconds of googling to find a list (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) but I think it was worth the hard work...

O.

[Hope]

What? Temperatures have levelled off, whereas the predictions said it was going to keep on going up.

What have temperatures alone got to do with it.  The term 'Global Warming' was a media-made concept to confuse the debate.  The proper term (as seen in the title of the IPCC) is 'Climate Change'.  Back in the early- to mid-90s, the sceintists were forecasting less severe but wetter winters in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the high-density precipitation events - such as we've seen in the past few years, and higher high tides.

[Jack Knave]

And if the IPCC were the only people making this claim you might have a point, but they aren't, are they? Admittedly, it took me nearly 8 seconds of googling to find a list (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) but I think it was worth the hard work...

O.

Numbers proves nothing, many people are copy cats.

[Jack Knave]

What have temperatures alone got to do with it.  The term 'Global Warming' was a media-made concept to confuse the debate.  The proper term (as seen in the title of the IPCC) is 'Climate Change'.  Back in the early- to mid-90s, the sceintists were forecasting less severe but wetter winters in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the high-density precipitation events - such as we've seen in the past few years, and higher high tides.

The planet has been undergoing climate change for millions of years, what's your point?

But that does not prove that it is caused by man. And my last point still stands, implying their models are not good enough.

[jeremyp]

Turning gas fired plants up and down is costly

Incorrect. Gas turbines can be turned on and off fairly cheaply since they are essentially just like jet engines.

and creates more green house gases thereby negating any gains from renewables.

Incorrect. You would only turn the gas turbines on when the renewable sources are not generating enough power.

Of course utilising solar energy is just common sense and researching efficient ways to store the electricity. It is also common sense to be as locally independent as possible using solar.

Agreed.

I don't think there will ever be enough renewable sources in this country to serve all our needs, particularly if most of our road transport moves to electricity. We will need some nuclear stations.

[Outrider]

Numbers proves nothing, many people are copy cats.

If numbers prove nothing, how do you intend to investigate whether the temperatures - a numerical representation of the heat energy at given points - are rising or declining, and then to investigate the possible causes and influences?

O.

[Hope]

The planet has been undergoing climate change for millions of years, what's your point?

But that does not prove that it is caused by man. And my last point still stands, implying their models are not good enough.

Whilst humanity has only kept weather records for 2 or 300 years at best, nature has been recording it for millennia.  There are soil cores, ice cores, tree rings and other natural recording 'devices' which show modern climate scientists what the weather patterns have done in the past.  Matching recent with past indicators show that the current changes are extra-ordinary, suggesting that there has been an additional factor in the changes.  When one realises that the extra-ordinariness correlates with human use of fossil fuels on an 'industrial scale', strongly suggests that that additional factor is human.

[Jack Knave]

If numbers prove nothing, how do you intend to investigate whether the temperatures - a numerical representation of the heat energy at given points - are rising or declining, and then to investigate the possible causes and influences?

O.

It was a reference to the number of people making the climate change due to mankind claim. Just because there are billions of gullible idiots doesn't make what they say right.

[Jack Knave]

Whilst humanity has only kept weather records for 2 or 300 years at best, nature has been recording it for millennia.  There are soil cores, ice cores, tree rings and other natural recording 'devices' which show modern climate scientists what the weather patterns have done in the past.  Matching recent with past indicators show that the current changes are extra-ordinary, suggesting that there has been an additional factor in the changes.  When one realises that the extra-ordinariness correlates with human use of fossil fuels on an 'industrial scale', strongly suggests that that additional factor is human.

That assumes we are reading the cores etc. correctly and that we have not missed any indicators that would change how things are interpreted.

And rapid and significant changes have occurred in the past, but I've only heard scientists mention this in the media and as such I have no links for these.

[Shaker]

It was a reference to the number of people making the climate change due to mankind claim. Just because there are billions of gullible idiots doesn't make what they say right.

The evidence makes it right. The converse of your "point" is that just because somebody is a clueless, scientifically illiterate arsehead doesn't mean they're right either, and in a scientific matter (which climatology is) are vastly less likely to be so.

[Hope]

That assumes we are reading the cores etc. correctly and that we have not missed any indicators that would change how things are interpreted.

Which goes just as validly for any of the arguments that you are making, Jack.

And rapid and significant changes have occurred in the past, but I've only heard scientists mention this in the media and as such I have no links for these.

There's plenty of evidence for that - you don't need to rely on "only (heard) hearing scientists mention this in the media" - IPCC documentation make plenty of reference to it.  The issue isn't the 'rapid and significant changes', but the context in which they occur.

[Jack Knave]

The evidence makes it right. The converse of your "point" is that just because somebody is a clueless, scientifically illiterate arsehead doesn't mean they're right either, and in a scientific matter (which climatology is) are vastly less likely to be so.

But there is no good evidence that can provide a definitive conclusion on this.

As for your second point I was not implying the opposite. Neither case proves any point to be correct only good and solid evidence can point the way.

[Shaker]

But there is no good evidence that can provide a definitive conclusion on this.

You do realise that we hear this shit from creationists about evolution every day, right?

[Jack Knave]

Which goes just as validly for any of the arguments that you are making, Jack.

I'm not reading any cores or anything else, so no it doesn't.

There's plenty of evidence for that - you don't need to rely on "only (heard) hearing scientists mention this in the media" - IPCC documentation make plenty of reference to it.  The issue isn't the 'rapid and significant changes', but the context in which they occur.

What the real issue is and the context is that the changes are 'cutting our throats' and making the world we have established for our selves more difficult. Some believe we can act like God and control this planet but we can't. We have no idea what our 'remedy' for all this will result in or the consequence that will follow it.

[Jack Knave]

You do realise that we hear this shit from creationists about evolution every day, right?

But saying that doesn't make what I say untrue. Trying to model the world's climate on the relatively small amount of data we have on our effect on the global is by definition very difficult and to believe that we've got it is delusionary. This is what you are implying that scientists have got it pretty much spot on, with very little error, but we have no way of making such a judgement.