Baygon, after stupidly closing its nuclear power plants because of a tsunami in Japan (unbelievable), Germany has now turned to the highly-polluting lignite (brown coal) for baseload power, along with importing nuclear-sourced power from France.

Relax Agronomist

chances are you will die from cold rather than heat.

Confused fellow, aren’t you Taswegian?
You advocate support of the global warming fraud, which falsely asserts the baseless human effect on climate, and then tell us that the shocks will come from natural warming, and fuel price rises, which rises would be caused by action based on the climate fraud. You have a tenuous grasp of reality, Taswegian, and no ability to make logical or truthful statements.
What else would we expect from a fraud promoter?
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, which makes your ridiculous definition of insurance look very stupid.
Climate fraud support can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty. Which of them is your basis, Taswegian?

The Duck, as a climate fraud supporter, has nothing to rebut this well written, factual article.
In standard fraud promoter procedure, since there is no science or facts to back the assertions of the fraud, the Duck baselessly smears the author of a book to which Nicola refers.
Fancy a lefty, like the Duck, having the temerity to stigmatise anyone for being “amoral”.

In the the world of lies are truth; and truth means lies, the world did stop warming in 1998 ( fake reporting).

BUT, in the world of science warming did continue. Matthew Holland et al have written about Oceans warming; and now, a new NASA study has come to the same conclusion. So, while temperature over land did not show large increases in temperature, warmth was taken up by the marine environment.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2521/study-sheds-new-insights-into-global-warming-trends/

We continually hear from deniers about how temperature is fraudulently manipulated ; in the US a series of weather stations were set up a number of years ago; each set up to measure temperature in a number of ways, virtually set up as datum points.
Weather stations set up years ago have been moved, the time temperature is measured has changed, the environment around them has changed, as have techniques of obtaining data changed. Meaning that consideration has to be taken in comparing current temperature, with temperature taken many decades ago.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf

There's a lot here I agree with! Yes, the WRONG energy spending increases the cost of energy to business with the oh-so-fatal intermittency of renewables. But it doesn't have to be that way. France has some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, is the largest exporter of electricity in the world, and has some of the lowest emissions in Europe.

Nuclear is the answer. Breeder reactors eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 year storage problem into tomorrow's energy solution. Yes, they are still being commercialised but 400 reactor-years experience with them shows that the physics works, and they can be built CHEAPER and SAFER than today's Light Water Reactors. (Water is an expensive safety issue as it runs under explosively high pressure in reactors. Other coolants run at just above room pressure).

$60 billion? I'd pump it into 30 AP1000 reactors (at the very high price of $5bn / GW, which would probably come way down if we built an AP1000 factory). Then without coal's nasty health effects on society, those nukes would be cheaper than today's coal fired electricity. It makes economic sense to deal with climate change, and that's not even COSTING climate change but just the public health purse!