Our coal and gas markets will cease to exist in around 30years time or sooner and given we are ruled by elitist troglobites. Who have been struck by an advanced case of Sergeant Shultz's syndrome? That has not limited their ability to serve up endless spin, verbal vomit? Just has blocked their ears and blinded their eyes, willfully?

And have us looking down the barrel of stranded assets/ unpalatable sovereign risk!

Without the aforementioned anchormen holing us back for all they're worth, with every means at their disposal, we could become an energy-exporting superpower if we could isolate the dumb bums and or, powerful vested interest, who want to chain us to coal and gas! And privatise everything not nailed down!

Simply put, if the goal is to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere? Then the most expeditious way is to stop using those fuels that create it!

And replace it with those that don't and stack up financially as unsubsidised energy provision. Even Forest Gump understand that!

Every western-style economy rests solely on just 2 support pillars, energy and capital. Capital has never ever been cheaper and privatised, corporatised energy has never ever been dearer!

Why? Because like water and the other utilities, is carrying way too many parasitic passengers and much too much lead in the economic saddlebag! Way too many and way too much!

More later and I know you know where I'll be heading with this!
Alan B

Steve S, whether the world is greening or not depends on who you listen to.

Here's one link that says the world has been greening for a few decades now: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144540/china-and-india-lead-the-way-in-greening

Here's another that says it hasn't: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/

Note that both articles are from the same year from web-sites of established and well regarded institutions.

Mr Opinion

We've already established by agreement that you don't understand what you're talking about, remember?

Emoting, and dishonest evasion of disproofs, is not "science".

You need to understand that you've been brainwashed. How you can tell, is by the fact that your garble-yarp is just a jumble of illogic that you can't defend but by instant descent into passionate personal abuse. Obviously you don't understand what science is. (Hint: its proofs can't rest on mere personal disparagement.)

Logic doesn't magically DISAPPEAR because some people want to steal from others and use the state as their instrument.

All one has to do, is state your unstated assumption that government has no interest in the topic, to see how absurd is your unstated theory of knowledge that "It must be so, because the government tells me so". Real clown-world stuff.

With *real* science, you can defend it with rational argument. What you've got is religion.

Okay? You need to understand that.

If you want, I can teach you how to un-do your brainwashing and actually use your brain for critical thinking.

But if you don't - and let's face it, you don't - then there's nothing to be done with you.

But squarking your hateful anti-human slogans doesn't make them true.

Anyway, you call yourself an "environmental sociologist", even though you don't understand the first thing about it, which I prove by your inability to answer this question on climate policy:
"What is the relevant data set?"

Go ahead. Answer.

Yes it's a no brainer. Obviously we should be focused on maintaining the lowest cost reliable energy supply currently available.

Lack of hardship for so long is probably a factor in today's skewed thinking. The danger reduced city environment with all it's convenience must have an effect on perception as well. Plus there's a larger than ever percentage of the population living on other than the physical production that naturally fosters rational thought.
Conditions are there to create susceptibility to the claims of doomsday prophets. Prophets for profit included.

Arguably it's always been a bit this way. Scriptures warned of armageddons to lure listeners out of savagery. Meant for good the same's been deviously used to gain wealth and power.
I suspect this climate change thing's much the same. Someone came up with a story about the world coming to an end and it's all gone on from there. Perhaps meant for good, true or false, fear of the story's bringing a great deal of harm not the least being the subversive preying on the fears of the innocent.

Over these years on these and other pages, I've mentioned and promoted the importance of a calculated figure called the ECS - “equilibrium climate sensitivity”.

The linked article explains it more fully, but basically its the estimated increase in temperatures following a doubling of CO2 levels.

http://www.cfact.org/2020/10/20/crisis-looms-in-alarmist-climate-science/

(Yes yes I know. Its CFACT. So those so disposed will ignore the underlying data but stillpretend to be following the science.)

The article shows that there is growing uncertainty about what the actual ECS is, with many calculations showing an ECS of less than 1.5C. That is, even if the CO2 levels double to 560ppm, the temperature would rise by less than 1.5c as compared to 1850. These new lower number are based on actual observational studies rather than climate models.

The point is that the whole issue is highly uncertain. Its possible that if we ever get to a CO2 doubling (highly unlikely) then temperatures will rise dangerously. OTOH its possible that they'll rise by such a small amount that we'll barely notice. (eg temperatures are already 0.8c over 1850. If the ECS of 1.2c is correct then the next century would see rises of only 0.4c, or less, due to increased CO2).

The upshot is that far from the science being settled, there is such uncertainty that economy disrupting policies ought to be delayed until the uncertainty is resolved.

mhaze,

You AGW deniers are exactly like the Holocaust deniers.

The only difference between the two is that one denies the past and the other denies the future.