Greenism in it's death throes

[sasguru]

glad to hear you're upping the game and we need authoritative sources! Can't we stick to creationists?

I can just imagine the obsessed BB, pot-noodling furiously in the bogs as his excitement grows that he has negated all of climate science with a single telling insight.

And the come down when he realises he's just another deluded pot-noodler.

Anyone seen Le Diner de Con? I'd like to do a remake with BB, EO and DP.

[Old Greg]

I can just imagine the obsessed BB, pot-noodling furiously in the bogs as his excitement grows that he has negated all of climate science with a single telling insight.

And the come down when he realises he's just another deluded pot-noodler.

Anyone seen Le Diner de Con? I'd like to do a remake with BB, EO and DP.

Leave EO out of this. He can't help it.

[EternalOptimist]

Leave EO out of this. He can't help it.

I dunno, I have found his comments insightful, clever and witty. In fact, when you throw in his good looks, charm and large willy, the b@stards got it all

[Old Greg]

I dunno, I have found his comments insightful, clever and witty. In fact, when you throw in his good looks, charm and large willy, the b@stards got it all

You fell down with you punctuation.

[NotAllThere]

I dunno, I have found his comments insightful, clever and witty. In fact, when you throw in his good looks, charm and large willy, the b@stards got it all

True. But the double incontinence makes up for it, I feel.

[d000hg]

That would be correct. The IPCC draws its expertise from the world's experts in their field, that field being climate science, and the related disciplines of energy production and economics. The segment of the most recent IPCC Assessment report on 'The Physical Basis', for example, was the work of over 700 researchers, every last one a published and practising climate scientist.

By contrast we have The Register, a periodical dedicated to news and gossip from the IT industry.

Your point may be valid in general, however which of their claims do you dispute in this instance and why? Have you read their arguments before dismissing them and if so can you objectively critique them?

Their core argument is that IPCC's claims energy usage will drop aren't realistic. Primarily because there are billions of people in less developed nations who are currently not using much energy and who are likely to use much more as they catch up Europe/USA. Compare how much energy UK used at a similar level of development with what we sue now.

[Old Greg]

True. But the double incontinence makes up for it, I feel.

No, the wee washes away the poo so they cancel each other out.

[pjclarke]

Yah - it's a ferrago of straw men, numbers plucked out of the air and assumptions. Lewis Page represents just one of the many possible scenarios considered by the IPCC so he can trash it, totally ignoring the point that:

"Each of the scenarios is underpinned by a range of variables such as changes in energy efficiency, population growth and per capita consumption. These lead to varying levels of total primary energy supply in 2050, with the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050, based on a total primary energy supply of 749 Exajoules"

A fair summary of Page's hatchet job would be - the IPCC says n percent of the global energy supply can come from renewables, however this ignores any increase in energy use by the developing world therefore the IPCC wants the developing world to remain in 'grinding, miserable poverty'. The manifest and numerous logical fallacies should be evident to the razor sharp minds around here ....

Anyhoo, the report isn't out yet, so we're arguing over a Press release

[d000hg]

He didn't say that. He specifically mentions it is their most optimistic scenario, not that it is their most likely one. And he doesn't say IPCC want people to be miserable, only that the energy-per-person the scenario assumes would lead to that result because there's no realistic way to reach such levels.

Even their most optimistic scenario should be achievable if everything goes right, "most optimistic" doesn't mean just picking a rosy future and ignoring it can't happen.

Their other scenarios may well be just fine, but one being so unrealistic is a little worrying.

[jacquiw]

It's interesting but I feel I detect a real sea change in peoples' perceptions of this and various other issues on which the trendy wendies have had the whip hand over the past decade.

Was an interesting article in yesterday's Telegraph in which the author postulates that we are witnessing the demise of the left all over Europe as the voting public finally wake up to the real consequences of voting for a socialist government; namely high levels of immigration, swinging levels of tax to pay for the welfare of the world's flotsam and jetsam and to pay for a bloated client state.

Thank God we got rid of them in time! SHAME ON YOU MR BLAIR.