Chris .. try this link .. the link on page 2 seems to be an old search term.

http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301359609&sr=8-1

This nails the repeated error of most alarmists since their entire understanding of the CO2 "issue" is underpinned by this reliance on an incorrect theory, which has been disproven so many times it is ridiculous.

Honestly, you'd think people could over their denial of new facts

What do you do when the facts change .. hellooooooo

spindoc .. thanks, great letter, though I await the usual crew of alarmists and their personal attacks based on their religious adherence to what can only be described sometimes as Climate Scientology

Jedimaster has given us object lessons in the techniques of promoting the AGW fraud.

1. The false implied premise. Where there is no possible justification for the basis upon which the activist wishes to proceed, he goes ahead as if it has been established, and his assertions take it for granted. There is no justification for lowering of emissions so JM wades in with facts about emissions, their quantities, where they come from and how they should be reduced.
2. Taking the pseudo high moral ground. This is where, having pulled the scurrilous trick of the implied premise, he accuses the people on OLO, who have had the temerity to tell the truth, that their actions are dragging the standards of OLO down. Activists think this is so clever. They do the wrong thing and then attack the people who have done the right thing, by talking down to them.

I thought that the standards of OLO had been raised, over the last few years. We are not swamped now with the warmists. There is a reasonable proportion of subscribers who tell the truth about AGW, and a few less who play games in their attempts to support AGW. Perhaps JM is feeling isolated, but there are plenty of sites for people like him.

Realclimate, is a site run by the Climategate miscreants. Skeptical Science is not about honest science, it is misleadingly named to hook people to read the claptrap posted there on the pretence that it is science. Wikipedia, where they actively promote nonsense like the consensus that never was.

Behave yourself JM, in a manner befitting OLO, or go to places that deserve you.

Curmudgeon

As usual, you make a range of assertions but do not provide even one solid reference (and please, don't quote newspapers, particularly the colour supplements).

And with regards to Wikipedia: In a previous thread (March 14) you said:

"There is also "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" 2009, Gabriel Alvarez, King Juan Carlos University in Spain(its avilable in English). Yes, I know the activist sites have since claimed (on thin evidence) that its discredited....."

Wikipedia refers to this study and also to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) refutation of it (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf.).

If you can blow off NREL as a bunch of activists, then I suppose we will have to rely on the colour supplement to the Saturday OZ as our ultimate authority. When I was working with guys from NREL, they were all recruited from Los Alamos Laboratories- They are heavy lifters.

And of course power companies are reluctant to take on renewables. Why should they? Anything that varies is anathema to them.

Amicus and your "Dragon":

Do you know enough physics to know whether these authors know what they are talking about? It didn't take me long on Google to find Judith Curry's blogsite (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/), where a range of physicists have tried to discuss the misconceptions in the book with the authors. More than 1200 posts on that site testify to the problem: Authors with half-baked ideas because they don't seem to know how scientific theories are tested. It reminded me of my time in a previous half-life when part of my job was to meet with perpetual motion machine "inventors". A PhD in physics an appeals to 150 years of thermodynamics were useless in the face of such obsession.

Writing an un-refereed book is pretty easy these days. You only have to find a market of like-minded followers to buy it. And putting reviews on Amazon is even easier.

The hard bit is getting your ideas to work in practice and establishing a thread of empirical reasoning.

.... which is not required in coloured supplements of weekend newspapers.

Chris Lewis, not sure if you wanted the actual IPCC reports or detailed critiques of them?

Both the reports and critical analysis can be found from the following home page. The work by Dr. Vincent Gray, a UN IPCC expert reviewer is particularly illuminating. The summary of findings is also provided. Hope this helps.

http://www.conscious.com.au/

Amicus, it will be interesting to see if Garnaut or Karoly respond and more importantly, how long it takes the media to break this story? Maybe a member of the “warmertariat” on OLO will have a crack at it?

Curmudgeon, I’ve posted the following extract before about the Danish wind farms. Hope this doesn’t give you flatulence?

“Supporters of wind power chant a mantra that Denmark proves that wind power works. BWEA says it now gets 20% of its electricity from wind turbines….” This is a cynically deliberate confusion of production with consumption. The 29% is of production and applies only to West Denmark which has most of the turbines. For the whole of the country the percentage is c.13% from wind.”

“More to the point, much of this electricity has perforce been exported to adjacent countries because it was produced when it is not needed. In some years over four fifths of the annual production has been exported, sometimes at zero income, thus costing the Danish public about DKK 1 Billion (about A$130m) per year though more recent estimates put annual losses at or above DKK 1.5 billion (A$220m per annum)”

Source “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington

ok, thanks. Will read as i am eager to understand why there are such strong views against the global warming debate.

Jedimaster
"And of course power companies are reluctant to take on renewables."

Why don't you and everyone who agrees with you? With your own money?