Taboos and the reporting od science

Here's an older paper by Svensmark about solar influence on global climate. The gist is perfectly understandable even if some of the scientific blurb seems a bit off-putting at first.

icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf

Morning
I might attack a view, but NEVER the person who holds that view, believing we are all entitled to our own opinions.
Will look at your link later, thanks.

In the interest of balance, you might like to look at Donna Laframboise's book about how the IPCC operates. It's quite an eye-opener.

In the interest of balance, I googled Donna Laframboise. It was worth doing!
Scroll down to:
'An open letter to Donna Laframboise' that too makes fascinating reading and, to quote ' an eye opener'.
I don't think I'll be buying her book!

Global warming or not - we are using up fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate and there is no real signs that there will be a slow down, how ever loud people shout about global warming.
Oil and gas reserves that are easy to access are being exhausted. This is why, for instance, there is pressure to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. The environmental impact and cost of ever more extreme oil and gas exploration and extraction are undeniable. We will be dependent on Russia for gas in the not too distant future - unless you think that enough can be shipped in, in tankers, to supply the whole of the UK.
So whether you "believe" in global warming or not, this situation is very worrying. We have lived with cheap energy for a long time - and as we head into old age, it is going to get much more expensive.
So making housing and businesses more energy efficient, and having an energy strategy for the country that includes renewables (and , unfortunately, probably nuclear as well) makes sense.
One of the concerns I have about "climate change denial" - note inverted commas bags is that it distracts from this imperative and supports the "it doesn't matter we can carry on burning stuff" argument

JessM thanks for moving us on .
My major concern, too, is the legacy we leave our children and their children if we continue to use up our finite resources.

Agree with you Jess. We can see how the rainforests in South America have been depleted by looking at the daily photos shown from the International Space Station. This overview is now being used by those countries to monitor logging and begin to replenish lost forestation, which could take hundreds of years, as long as logging continues. The forests are the lungs of our planet. We can't keep burning stuff if we want to leave a decent environment for future generations.

I agree that we need to conserve our energy resources - some may feel that the jury may appear to be out on climate change (or at least there is some conflicting scientific evidence) but the dwindling of energy resources does not seem to be in dispute.

The human race just needs to shed the idea that we can fly wherever we want whenever we want.

I get thoroughly fed up with conserving energy at home and then walking down the high street at night and seeing all the shops lit up and rows of TVs on in shop windows; or seeing a film of Hong Kong with lights blaring - makes you wonder why you bother! But I do still bother - I can't afford not to!

I share the same concerns but I also worry that some of the very policies that are supposed to help the environment are making things worse. Biofuels come to mind. Other environmentalists have similar concerns about policies which really are not working as it was hoped, but causing more problems than they solve.

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5606-fritz-vahrenholt-qthe-sun-is-giving-us-time-to-come-up-with-smarter-policies.html

sorry. Forgot to blue it:

thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5606-fritz-vahrenholt-qthe-sun-is-giving-us-time-to-come-up-with-smarter-policies.html

I think we are bound to make some mistakes along the way - but we should still keep trying to find other sources of energy and conserving what we have.

That's true, mishap (about the inevitable mistakes). We are finding new sources of energy. Shale gas, anyone?

No, No, No! (thankyou)