Having said i will read the IPCC report and responses, it looks rather daunting and will take much reading and time.

JM, you can't complain about other people's aggression if you are going to be aggressive yourself. You don't need a PhD in anything to understand that wind power destroys national income. It's simple economics. It costs far more than the alternatives to produce miniscule amounts of energy. The same amount of money invested in conventional power will get you a better return.

The NREL report is a doozy. It talks about "traditional" ways of measuring renewable energy job generation, which, surprise surprise, relies on "sophisticated" modelling, unlike the Spanish who essentially measure return on investment as a proxy for job generation. Plenty of room to hide and tweak with the models, but nowhere to hide with a straight statement of principle which can be empircally shown to be correct.

In fact, there is no way to empirically test the economic models. Deja vue! The Spanish are right. The Yanks are involved in sophisticated, modelled economic casuistry and special pleading.

jm "Amicus and your "Dragon""

it's not my dragon .. read the posts, I was helpng Chris with a broken link .. you really MUST try to pay attention.

I haven't read that book, but have read other material on the "greenhouse" theory .. and why yes, I do have the physics to understand it, thank you for asking.

jm, on the internet, if you look hard enough you can find anything you want, which is why I don't bother to play link wars, it really is pointless.

Google seems to be the backbone of authority for "your" posts, let me ask .. do YOU have the physics to understand it, without google that is .. ?

Perpetual motion machine inventors, that just seems so apt .. you had to meet with such for a job?

Couldn't cut it in industry huh?

GrahamY

Have you ever heard of economic spillovers and externalities? They can make a big difference- they even kept the Dutch East India Company going for more than 100 years after- by your criterion- it was broke. Never let let a sophisticated analysis get in the way of a simplistic mantra.

And to Amicus- my last point: I developed and managed a $10M R&D support program- being a government agency, we were obliged to respond couteously to everyone- even perpetual motion machine nutters. I didn't realise how handy that experience would become.

I can see OLO drifting- nay- rushing into denialist solipsism. Perhaps it was to be expected, all things considered.

I'm not Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee or Steven Seagal- I'm just a humble Jedimaster, where even the film's director weighs in on behalf of the Evil Empire, who have me surrounded. One light-sabre against all those forces of darkness....

Help me Obi-Wan Kanobi- you're my only hope.

(Exits left stage)

(Credits roll, lights go up to reveal all of the remaining audience for this cosmic farce are sitting on the far right of the theatre).

Jedimaster is at it again. Feet planted firmly in mid air, he makes puerile and pointless references to weekend supplements, then gives us a discredited site like Wikipedia as his reference.

NREL are not just activists JM, they are clowns. There is no renewable energy or sustainable energy that is viable. When there is, we will know it because it will be announced by real people and not by paid fools. You understand; the opposite of Tim Flannery, and NREL.

You have adopted the only strategy available to you, in ignoring my posts. Anyone that asks you for scientific backing for your baseless stance is best ignored, since you have no answer for them. You might look pathetic, but it is more palatable to someone like you than showing beyond doubt that you are clueless

Stick to answering the people who accept the game playing, evasion, weasel words and nonsense that is essential to the AGW fraud backer.

If there were any science to back the assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate the leaders of the scam, the IPCC do not know about it. Their pathetic effort is to say that it is "very likely". About 60 scientists back this opinion. Of those, 5 are unconflicted. Of the rest, taking their opinion is like taking the opinion of the Climategate miscreants.

A petition to the US Senate asking that no action be taken on AGW until there is a scientific basis for it, is signed by 32,000 scientists.

Climate is governed by natural cycles, which have been around since before humans were on the Earth and will be around long after. Our input makes no difference to climate.

Jedimaster,

I would not worry about whether you feel you are up against a biased crowd.

The main thing is that you have a view and argue your case.

As in all debates, some will be on the winning side, some on the losing side.

If it is worth anything, i do agree we should do more to reduce greenhouse house gas emissions. However, I question whether Labor's approach will be any more effective than the Coalition's.

I certainly feel that no government, after stating a certain stance, should renege without going to the people again.

I spoke to several global warming skeptics at the Lord Deben address, and they indicated they would accept the people's decision.

So let us have the debate, and stick to your guns. I am sure that plenty of people may share your view that read OLO, although they may be less willing to get into the debate.