Round & round we go; same arguments over & over again.
Back on page 2 Tombee raised the real argument, how do we generate the
energy we need ?
Coal & Oil have started their decline irrespective of all the carryon
about global warming and CO2 reduction. It was always going to happen.

Solar & wind will ease the change but will not be the final solution.
They just cannot do the job.
Until some other magic solution appears we need to make a start on
nuclear energy as it is the only long term solution in sight.
I am not sure we can afford a fleet of nuclear stations but what else is there ?

Bazz
The first and most serious problem is CO2 emissions. The consensus is that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 Deg C we can only add at most 886 giga tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. The know economic reserves of oil and gas contain 2795 giga tonnes of potential CO2 which is at least three times greater than the amount we can safely emit.

http://www.theactuary.com/features/2013/09/the-environment-the-carbon-bubble/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant-we-give-up-fossil-fuels

The problem that conventional oil will likely become become increasingly more expensive is serious, but not in the same league as climate change. Oil supplies can and are being extended by the use of unconventional oil such as tar sands. Also there are alternatives such as LPG and LNG, biodiesel and even synthetic fuel made from coal.

No Warmair as I explained earlier the IPCCC's figures for the available
coal & oil are wrong.
This was pointed out by the Uppsala University's Global Energy Systems
Group a few years back.

It does not matter anyway the decline has started.

SteeleRedux wrote: "You are a funny guy.
Either that or you don't have much of an idea about statistics."

This from the dill who didn't even know there was such a thing as the pause until I lead him by the hand to the truth.

I made no claims about the pause other than it exists. Poor old SteeleRedux thinks that showing other periods that don't have a pause means something. But that's because he doesn't understand the significance of the current hiatus. How could he when he was blissfully unaware of it two days ago.

Gentle soul that I am, I give him a little education.

The climate models don't predict a pause. A mere 2% of climate simulations predict a 15yr pause at any time. None predict a 20yr pause. So the significance of the pause be it 15, 18 or 20 yrs is that it calls into question the accuracy of the models. Any number of scientists including many so-called consensus scientists have acknowledged this dilemma.

In the end this whole stupid stupid scare is based on the predictions of the models. If the models showed that many factors other than CO2 caused claimte change and that the future scenarios of warming were more benign, then the scare wouldn't have taken off. IF the models are wrong, if they overstate by a significant amount, the predicted warming, the whole flimsy edifice collapses.

There's much more but let's not over extend SteeleRedux.

But one last thing. The models didn't predict a pause. But some scientists did (eg the late great John Daly). In a better world their reputation would be enhanced. But alas.

ant,

"permafrost thawing".

If you refuse, as you have, to offer any explanation as to why we should blame this thawing on AGW when it was also occurring 150yrs ago, then, unfortunately my dear lad, you have zero credibility.

mhaze, where is your evidence about permafrost thawing 150 years ago?

A quote from National Geographic:

"Most of Alaska sits on top of permafrost, and as the climate has warmed, the permafrost has started to melt. In this video Torre Jorgenson, a landscape ecologist at Alaska Biological Research, shows a spot in Alaska where the melting permafrost has turned the forest into ponds.
For the first time in tens of thousands of years, Siberia's frozen land is undergoing a thaw. Scientists warn that the process could release billions of tons of carbon, which could quickly turn into greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and further accelerate global warming."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Permafrost

The so called Little Ice Age lasted from 1300-1870, your comment about permafrost thawing in a very significant manner doesn't mesh.
A few hot days in summer does not cause permafrost to thaw, it needs a constant period of warmth for the thawing process to take place.

Read the conclusion from:

http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf