DavidK,

Fancy running into you on another "skeptic" article thread written by a person who doesn't possess scientific training or expertise on climate science.

Here's some good news (not)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inhofe-an-epa-foe-likely-to-lead-senate-environment-committee/2014/11/05/d0b4221e-64f4-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

"Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee"

How weird that science, which has led us so far, is now doomed to play second fiddle to ignorance and profit....so much for civilisation.

I had a look at the article on
http://c21stleft.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/breaking-the-climate-deadlock-with-rd

The article at C21 concentrates on wind and solar which while making a significant contribution is only one of a long list of possible low or no carbon sources of energy. It fails to mention hydro power which accounts for 12 of the 20 largest power stations in the world, the balance is 6 nuclear, 1 fuel oil, 1 natural gas, and 1 coal (at no 18).
The Three Gorges dam has the largest capacity followed by the Itaipu producing the greatest amount of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world

For a couple of interesting developments see the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/first-island-to-be-powered-solely-by-wind-and-water-140428.ht

Byork,

While our politics don't align, we at least agree on an objective review of the "climate science".

From what I understand reading the analysis in New Scientist, Scientific American, etc, is that:

1 CO2 emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperatures,

2 There are thousands of variables and factors that will either accelerate or slow warming, and the interaction of these factors is extremely complex. The modelling of the warming effects requires an allocation of the importance of each of these factors, which due to a lack of historical data is a best guess scenario. This why the range of predicted outcomes is so large.

3 The results so far of warming compared to the models, show that the warming, sea rise etc falls either at the very lowest of the predictions or even lower.

4 Life on earth on earth is adaptable and has existed even with CO2 levels as high as 2000ppm

5 The only country in the world with C)2 emissions that are falling is France who generates most of it power from nuclear.

SM,

"Life on earth is adaptable and has existed Even with CO2 levels as high as 2000 ppm"

The last time you were harking so knowledgeable on the resilience of "life" amidst a high atmospheric level of CO2, you were alluding to a time when the morre complex "llife" was in the seas and all that existed on land was a microbial crust.

You do understand, that human civilization has been possible in tiny niche of climate largesse for the blink of an eye in a geologic timeframe - and just because the trilobites thrived once upon a time when the atmospheric CO2 was high, doesn't mean our civilization will fare as well.

Poirot,

Shadow Minister's point is valid. The Occupational Safety and Health Admin in the US, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists place the permissible exposure limit for worker safety at 5000 ppm.

Perhaps you might like to try and argue a case (for whatever it is you actually believe) rather than just assert your sense of superiority.

byork,

"...The Occupational Safety and Health Admin in the US, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists place the permissible exposure limit for worker safety at 5000 ppm."

Do they also have a permissible exposure limit for an ecosystem...or a civilisation?