Taboos and the reporting od science

No, No, No! (thankyou)

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

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.

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 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

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

You're right. I chose the word 'attacked' carefully. I've felt it a few times. Now that I know sharpness is not intended, I'll be able to let it pass when I feel the 'ball' has been left behind in the interest of catching the man.

Writing posts, one has to be so careful not to convey anything which may be misinterpreted.
I should have included a after my opening comment, I was alluding to your 4 replies and not anything that had been said before, in that post.
I too say this in the kindest way but I do think you use emotive language sometimes 'attacking my posting style' seems a bit strong and certainly wasn't my intention.
I'm sure you read widely, and I do enjoy reading the interesting articles
to which to draw people's attention.
I'm far too nosey to ignore your posts!

I think there's one thing you have missed though, ogm, which is that I look at both sides too. I was as concerned about climate change as you, possibly more so, a few years ago. Then I started to read some stuff from the other side......

This is said in the kindest way, and with a twinkle in my eye and warmth in my heart towards you, but why is it that you think I protest too much? All I do is post some stuff that interests me and then respond to following posts. There may be several posts from me instead of one because I'm too "post button happy" and then think of something else. I do tend to think in jerks and since I'm not writing an essay, I post in jerks too. Attacking my posting style is just a distraction technique. If I'm posting more than you or someone else on this subject, so what? In fact I haven't posted anything on the subject for quite a long time but felt that the new Svensmark paper was important and different. Likewise, James Lovelock's recent statements are highly significant. To me.

You could, after all, always ignore my posts .

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
4 replies to my latest post!

Dear Bags I acknowledge and respect your right to hold the opinions you do. I merely want to suggest that there are usually two sides to an argument/debate.

It was late last night and I did use extreme (I added the inverted commas) when I should have used severe and boy, it has been severe with rainfall for April being the most since records began, apparently, here in the SW.

May I refute a few pre-conceptions you may have about me:

I had noticed that Anthony Watts reports on global warming issues ( see above post).
I do not fear climate change/global warming, concern does not equate to fear.
I enjoy looking at the many and varied reports with their accompanying statistics (for both sides of the debate) and thank you for drawing my attention to 'WATTS UP'. Later I shall Google the latest IPCC report, in the interests of balance.
Finally, I totally agree, Climate changes.

PS (then I'll shut up, honest!) The Met Office uses the term 'severe', not extreme. There's a difference. Severe doesn't imply anything out of the ordinary even if it is unwelcome.

But the get back to the original question (well remark), doesn't it strike you as remotely interesting that one of the fathers of the global warming scare, James Lovelock (yes, I have read his book, ^The Revenge of Gaia^; I didn,t think he was being alarmist at the time either), has said that he was being alarmist about global warming? Doesn't that make you stop and think that maybe, just maybe, a few others might have exaggerated too? After all, he's not the first Warmist to move away from the (ahem) extreme predictions.

So since when has a bit of cold, wind and rain in April been extreme? It may not be the weather people want, but it's normal weather for all that. The fact that some newsreader or weather reader calls it extreme doesn't mean a thing.

Unless you want it to .

Enjoy your fear.

Sure, ogm. You'll believe what you want to believe. I just provided the facts that you asked for which, perhaps you didn't notice, did not originate with Anthony Watts. He has just collected the information together for interested people. The information on his sea ice reference page is from the sources I quoted. You don't have to trust them either, but one wonders why not.

Oh dear, there goes my early night!

Bags again a quick peek and I let myself get involved again!
I looked up your references.
I then 'Googled' WATTS UP to discover (Wikipedia) that:
'Anthony Watts reports on anthropogenic global warming-related issues from a skeptical standpoint...'
On reading further, the section titled 'Reception' made interesting reading.
Sorry I am not computer-literate enough to provide a link, but you could easily find it.
You and I must agree to differ as you will quote evidence from 'Skeptic sources' and I will continue to believe IPCC published reports.
With apologies to Anagram for prolonging the 'debate'.
P.S. Our local news reported on the 'extreme' weather we are experiencing here in the Southwest at the moment.

So where is carboncareful at this juncture? (Hope you're OK, cc)

Well said, Bags. I'm tired of global warming fanaticism.