Thanks SPQR

For those references.

Another is The Age, Nov 2, 2009, which reported:

"AUSTRALIA has been accused of pushing for a ''get-out clause'' [for the Copenhagen climate change deal] that would grant it unlimited carbon credits from new forestry plantations while pretending that enormous greenhouse gas emissions from bushfire did not exist.

" [More to the point]...In a year such as 2003, when Victorian fires burned more than a million hectares, this could mean not accounting for up to 200 million tones of carbon dioxide - about a third of Australia's annual emissions."

see http://www.theage.com.au/environment/australias-getout-clause-on-bushfire-slammed-20091101-hrn5.html

Well said Robert LePage, especially this sentence: "Denialism is about tactics that are used to frustrate legitimate discussion." One day these people will be held accountable for holding up necessary action on mitigating climate change. But I have to ask: Are denialists just ignorant or are they being paid by the fossil fuel lobby? Certainly their comments are not characterised by any intelligence, wit or humanity.

'One day these people will be held accountable for holding up necessary action on mitigating climate change. '

It certainly would be very unfair for 'denialist'to be held to account. The warmist had predicted no snow in England from about 2010 and no rain on the East Coast of Australia. Surely it would only be right to hold the prophets who have made millions to account first especially as they have egg all over their faces.

Great Caesar's Ghost!

It's hard to believe I've actually read this article here today in the twenty-first century.

Mr Catt writes a sort of mixed up prayer of confession, penance and hopelessness all at the same time to some hybrid Christian/Green/CAGW Life/God/Mother Earth deity. Is that weird or what?

Aside: This has got to be a wind-up, yes? Surely no one could really think, write or believe any of this.

What about this bit - "I like tagines"? Where did that come from? My spell checker didn't recognise the word and I had to go Google tagines to find out what it was. Even then I couldn't work out how to place it into context.

And then he goes on -

"And yet we are told all this good stuff is ruining the planet.
I don't want to destroy the earth
but I also don't what to lose the life I now enjoy.
It seems so unfair that the two just won't go together."

What two, tagines and the Earth?

Why are tagines destroying the Earth? He doesn't explain that bit. But then maybe he's on to something. Some new CAGW conjecture. Someone with a Christian/Green/CAGW religion could be capable of no end of devilish pessimism to link tagines with global destruction. After all, they did it to CO2.

Wow. What can you say?

My advice to Mr Catt - go back to basics, read the Holy Bible, refresh your understanding about the miseries of man eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, banish yourself from technology, using cars, world travel and tagines, especially tagines, find some modern Eve-like woman to blame and curse her to eternity with periods. Then, embrace a tree, hang on to it tightly and await the forthcoming apocalypse whilst chanting prayers to diverse deities of your choice.

Good luck Mr Catt.

The frightening part about this folks, is that I don't think it's a wind-up.

@ Curmudgeon:

"You can't mix nuclear and renewables... without gas. This is because nuclear plants are... best running at constant output (etc)."

The French and others have been ramping nuclear plants up and down for over 4 decades. All power stations are more efficient at constant load, however that does not mean that constant load is the only option available.

Think back a couple of decades and the whole Australian grid was run without gas turbines. Baseload plant (coal fired, but so what?) plus 10% hydro did the job.

As for Gunter's observation that German roofs are plastered with solar PV panels: in winter, these become unproductive ornaments with capacity factors of less than 1%. I have nothing against renewables per se, but the German public have been conned into throwing money at PV regardless of value obtained and now are spending more money again, constructing new coal fired power stations, with all that that implies. Talk about idiotic! This is the way to satisfy nobody, while concurrently chasing industry away. The amount of money involved dwarfs anything spent on Australia's Pink Batts game which has had precisely zero impact on the sales of domestic air conditioning. They are Australia's building ornaments, the difference being that they are under the roof.

Eventually, when it is far too late, Germany and the rest of the world will revert to construction of power stations of various technologies as determined by rational decision making. I expect that there will always be a place for PV, but primarily much closer to the equator, where the insolation levels are much higher and more constant throughout the year.

@popnperish: "Last year was the hottest ever in the continental US. We broke all kinds of records in Australia during the heatwave which the Climate Commission said was 'exacerbated' by climate change. So stop fighting it and accept it. "

I'm going to put two words up on the board, and I want to tell me if you can distinguish between them:

USA

World

I know a lot of people have trouble with this; it's a common condition, but it can be cured by reading and paying attention. If it's still causing you trouble you might want to ask the people in China (about the size of Australia) and Russia (much bigger than the US), who have just had record cold winters, how they feel about 'global warming' at the moment.

I miss the good old days, when people used to keep telling us: 'Weather is not climate!" Whatever happened to them?