That is what averages are for Faustino. Weather forecasting involves probability, so any forecast reflects this. For some places you may be able to make an excellent estimate of the probable annual rainfall, but be unable to accurately forecast on what days of the year you will get the rain. Not that yourself or any other sceptic should feel less compelled to repeat this or other stuff like “Hey, Mars is having global warming too!” adnauseum, simply on the basis of it being misleading drivel. Go for it!

As for CO2 not being a cause of global warming, it may not be. But would all the sceptics clutching at alternatives mind explaining why one should give credence to ideas which are either not supported by observation or untested. Some sceptics might not like the idea of CO2 being the cause of global warming, but so far it is the only valid explanation.

I cannot let David Latimers little venture into fairy land go by without comment. All the usual generalisations but nothing specific.

How does reducing CO2 improve efficiency when every alternative energy source, including nuclear, is more expensive?
How does it save money? note the above.
How does it improve energy security, and for whom, certainly not the poor who cannot afford current energy prices.
How is it good for (all) farms when some farms will get more rain and some will get less.

You guys forget that you have tried this crap on before. Remember all those eco-tourism jobs that were supposed to re-employ timber workers? They, like greenies at a bush fire, never showed up. And now the forests are nothing but cinders, we know damned well they never will show up.

The biggest joke is the way the FOE et al keep trotting out this same old transparent BS and react with mock surprise that people don't take them seriously. Get this straight folks, we will never do business with spivs and parasites, it only makes us want to scratch.

MonashL,

Is the IPCC recommending jellybeans? Their latest report is the largest single effort by the world’s community of scientists - and governments, including ours - to pin down the likely outcome of changes to our environment. No-one disputes it’s changing, and very few dispute the cause. Even our PM has recanted on this one.

Your references are no doubt knowledgeable in the field, more so than you or me. How does their research tally with the findings of other researchers? I won’t dispute here the belief that CO2 emissions are actually cooling the planet though this would be a revelation on the scale of, oh, the second coming. Such research can be evaluated in the appropriate forum. I have to say I’d love to know the outcome. Many sceptics maintain all sorts of things in the face of overwhelming evidence, no matter what’s put in front of them. Everyone is entitled to pick holes in scientific findings - by definition it’s what scientists do, and what reports are for. Many dispute the fundamental findings of the IPCC; my view is they should put their theories forward and let others duplicate them. Today there is a 90% likelihood they will ultimately resemble those of the IPCC. Are you waiting for absolute certainty? I suspect you know better.

My references to quibbling over the minutiae are in response to one post pointing out ‘Australian territorial waters’ and our woodlands are capable of sucking up such-and-such amounts of CO2. Well and good, but how does this change the overall picture? Are these figures constant or might a warming pacific ocean or deforestation lessen this capacity? As I see it this is missing the wood for the trees. Caught a plane recently? Cycled to work instead of drove your car? Forgot to turn off the aircon or subscribed to green power or written a letter to the paper complaining about how ugly windfarms are or might you have dreams of being a coalminer? It isn’t just the government that needs to come to the party

Bennie;
The problem is too much gut feeling not enough hard evidence.

Johnj wrote

"(but I can't access the full report unless I pay US$20)"

Well Johnj, you can get it for free here, and it still isn't worth the read.

http://www.katewerk.com/temp/sda_WE.pdf

Perseus is correct in saying that coal generated electricity is currently the cheapest, but that is more due to it being an advanced technology rather than a lack of potential in the alternatives. One corporation claims to be able to produce continuous electricity from a solar thermal plant for 3.5 cents US per kilowatt hour. As well, the plant produces 40 litres of desalinated water (< 30 ppm salt) per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. And all this without advances in technology.

http://www.trecers.net/downloads/GCREADER.pdf

Anti-green, contrary to billies whine“anti-green who cares about nitpicking the climate modelling numbers.”

You are right to question the validity of the modeling.

Billie when a 1/10th of one percent error will influence the world economic by billions of dollars and over the course of decades not only trillions of dollars but more importantly, the entire lifestyle of people “nit-picking” the model is not only essential it is culpably negligent not to do so.

Well said MonashLibertarian

Bennie, your contribution is lamentable, predictable but lamentable.

Fester, nice of you to introduce the occurrence of an ice ages. I would note these past events occurred presumably without significant human influence and their causation have not diminished. I guess when someone really understands and can accurately model the cycle of their occurrence we might worry less about global warming and more about cooling. In other words, we can not rely on either unproven scientific theory to predict when the next ice age will come and we should not rely on unproven scientific theory (in the form of untested models) to predict the future of global warming.

anti-green “Bennie; The problem is too much gut feeling not enough hard evidence. “

And is wholly dependent upon if one chose the not-so-fresh prawns with ones green salad, for dinner last night.

Oh and footnote - if all the alternative energy sources were so good, they would not have a problem finding investors to support their development. The problem is more, they too are trying to latch onto the public teat for subsidy.