no no yes no

"paranoid conspiracy theory worldview"

I don't have a "conspiracy theory worldview", paranoid or otherwise.

I do accept what the science is tell us. But it isn't tell us that we have enough data to know if there is a problem and I'm opposed to unending society on the basis of guesses.

I'm entirely in favour of a 'no regrets' approach to a potential future problem. I'm opposed to policies designed to fix a problem that may or may not exist where the costs of the fix are out of all proportion to the known problem. For example, if it turns out that sea levels do rise by 1 metre over the next 80 years the people who will be faced with that problem will be well placed and significantly better off materially to address the problem at that time. There is little point in us 'fixing' that problem now when we don't know it will be a problem then.

So the SPM was not written by the scientists for the policy makers? Do you have any evidence of that, not just assertion?

Now, remember this Working Group V SPM all originated in your denialist dogma doosie that there are no likely increases in extreme weather events? What do you make of this from the Working Group, which you previously said you stood by?

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

“Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these REGIONAL events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“
Page 916: again from the Working Group: CAPS mine to illustrate the change in topic from the GLOBAL quotes your sources cherrypicked.

You're just embarrassed that you didn't read that bit of the report! But filtering your sources of evidence down to the denialist sound-bytes will embarrass you like that. Why not join the actual scientific discussion, and drop the denialist dogma?

Glacier gate shows that the truth will out. The IPCC eventually dumped that report. It's been rebuked. Done and dusted. It would be a different matter if the IPCC tried to cover it up and stood by that report, but they don't.

Sorry, but the verdict is in. You just don't like it.

Mhaze, what I said was "Peak Crude Oil".
ie the source of oil that has been coming from long term fields.
This peaked as predicted in either late 2005 or early 2006.
As the supply tightened in 2007 then further in 2008 the increasing
price rose to US$147 and caused the triggering of the fraudulent
non prime housing loans, the economy collapsed the price fell to US$35.

That was peak oil. Then price started rising again to US$110
in 2010 and made an old technique of horizontal drilling and fracking feasible.

This gave us a few years of excess supply but as was predicted
this has resulted in another period of volatile prices now around
US$45.
Around 2000 the price of oil was US$20 so the current "low" price is
more than double the 2015 adjusted for inflation price.
The current price is higher than what the economy can afford but is
lower than what the tight shale oil producers can make a profit.
That is why there are so many bankruptcies of the US oil companies.
Additionally, the major oil companies, the Shells, BP, Mobil etc are
in real trouble with very large falls in profits and $Tillions tied
up in search and development and unable to make it pay.

So to get back to your question, that is what I mean by "Peak Oil".
Except for the temporary supply of tight oil which has given an extra
cover at high expense for some 8 years it is exactly as Campbell,
Defreyes and De Lahrerre predicted for peak oil. High price volatility
following glut and shortage. Although falling demand seems to be a
replacement for shortage so far.

Hope that clarifies what I mean. We are in a serious position because
to get a new energy system up and running with comparible reliability
to our present expectations without affordable oil & coal is going to
be very difficult.

So you see why I am frustrated to see people chasing the wrong solution.
We do not have 50 years, we have if we are lucky between 10 and 20 years.

mhaze, you stated that:

"And then the usual purveyors of the gullible buy in and assume that what is data is wrong and what isn't data is true. oh well!"

mhaze
Please show us data; then, you haven't till so far..

You take the stance of the usual denier (luke warmer) and make many statements that are unfounded without any empirical evidence. Or, as Max states use cherry picked data.

Here is a reference you most likely have not come across:

https://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

In relation to your last post, Miami is already spending huge amounts of capital to hold back "fine day flood waters", it is recognised I understand that it is not considered a complete solution.

mhaze you say there is not enough evidence for action to take place in relation man created climate change.
.We have incredible flooding through rain bombs
.Dry lightening causing huge wild fires; fire seasons are getting longer, and the fires are becoming bigger
.Glaciers are breaking down.
.Arable land being destroyed.
.Permafrost thawing causing huge costs to repair infra structure e.g. Alaska Highway.
.Marine environments are changing.

The science is there showing CO2 to be implicated.

mhaze, the only weapon you have against those situations is to try and minimalist them, you provide no references which debunks them

Peak oilers keep redefining peak oil. Back in the good old days it was total oil produced, and nothing, no tar-sands, no shale-oil, no horizontal drilling, NOTHING would get it above 86mbd or 90 mbd or whatever. This is laws of physics stuff, they told us. There are profound technical reasons it can't be so, they told us. EROEI. Supply not meeting demand. Etc etc etc.

Instead, what do we find?

"World oil supply hit 97.2 million barrels per day at the end of 2015."
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/world-oil-demand-and-supply-could-hit.html

Now peak oil is just peaking of *conventional* fluids, not *all* fluids. Or it's some economic definition, or some other demand side definition, or it's peak oil because the price has crashed!? Just change the definitions as the prophecies of doom fail to pass. While I acknowledge that all fossil fuels WILL one day peak and decline, it seems our technology just keeps finding new cheap enough ways to get at the dirtier and dirtier stuff. I mean, Canada's tar sands were at 2.3mbd back in 2014!
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp

In a real emergency, we can even do Coal-to-liquids and underground coal gasification. Fossil fuel supply is not the issue. Climate is! We can't even burn all the remaining oil without pushing way passed 2 degrees!

Now the good news. NREL studies have shown that we can charge over 80% of today's driving as EV's on the existing grid! Unused off peak night-time electricity is already 'spare', and could charge about 45% of today's car fleet.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/

Elon Musk has opened Stage 1 of his Gigafactory for bulk manufacturing of lithium batteries for EV’s! The world in 2014 produced 30 GW lithium batteries, but Elon’s factory will produce 50 GW a year from 218, and 150 GW per year in the 2020’s. Elon plans to be selling 1.5 million EV’s a year by the 2020’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GBnJNLoBuw

And that's just Tesla. There are other major car companies starting down the electric pathway. Once most trucks and cars are electric, there's no real problem.

Well Max, I am a fan of electric cars having driven two of them but
could not afford to buy one. I had to cancel my order when they told
me the price. They were $27,500 DEARER than in the US and $17,500
dearer than in the UK. There are problems that you have ignored, such
as the supply of lithium, it is beginning to look like Teslar might
use up the available supply on its model 30.
Trucks are another problem, by the time you load up the truck for a
1000 mile journey with its batteries there is no room for cargo !
That is roughly the way it is, you can argue around the edges but a
truck that has to stop every say 200km for a several hour charge is
just uneconomic. Obviously the railway is the way to go.

I am sure that you understand the limits of the tight oil so I won't
bother pointing it out to you here