Listen you guys whether climate change is real or not, the fact is pollution in all forms is bad. If you don't believe this stick your mouth around an exhaust pipe and turn the car on.

There are some pretty simple things that can be done now. How about all government cars and private cars must be 4 cyclinders or less. WOW - what a saving $$$$$. Make a low cost gas car, solar car.

No more expenditure on new roads - spend it on public transport.

Make manufacturers responsible for their packaging. eg all packaging goes back to the supermarket.

We used to have a small bin for garbage - now we have 4 times the size. Are we getting smarter or dumber? Give everyone with a house a compost bin!

Give everyone a pool blanket! As soon as you give rebates the manufacturers put the price up.

Retrofit all appliances with a TOTAL OFF SWITCH - no standby allowed on new appliances.

It really does concern me when governments can't agree on a NO BRAINER like - no plastic bags!!

Look, "rstuart",

Setting aside your condescending tone for the moment . . . as I have already said, anyone can present "your" experts' facts . . . then I can present "my" experts' facts . . . they, and we, will continue to argue until hell freezes over or we all go up in a ball of flame. I have known many scientists personally. I am, by nature, inherently skeptical of ANY "sacred cow" dogma, especially when it is wrapped in the claim of "absolute" scientific consensus . . . given the fact that most scientists are specialists.
I live in the U.S., I've been to the Gulf of Mexico many times. I've read and studied numerous articles and papers about the oil industry -- both pro and con -- and the evidence of new reserves. There is simply not room enough to go into detail in this Forum about all the supporting evidence for new reserves. I have reams of documents, pro and con. I can only tell you that your statements about the Gulf do not agree with most of the written material I have studied, and the conversations I have had with professionals in the industry. When I have the time, I will make the effort to post the many sources on this forum. In the meantime, I would be interested to know the specific source of the one alleged study you mention, which you say contained data about 928 scientific papers. Have you actually read the study yourself, in its entirety? What was the specific methodology used in gathering those particular scientific papers into the study? What was the criteria used for choosing them over others? If not even ONE of the papers took a skeptical view of the "consensus", I would have to ask how serious the study's organizers were in actually LOOKING for alternative voices in the scientific community. I have personally read several articles about the disputes among those involved with the U.N. report. No one has to take my word for it. Just take the time to punch in a few keywords.

Umm … Col, that drivel came from the Pentagon.

If you have a problem with their report, go have a rant to them (suggest you leave the ad homs at home, it will help your credibility, IMHO).

Sonofeire

You may have missed it but since you are back I’d like to ask again. My understanding of the Holocene is that temperature anomalies did not differ “by as much as 27 degrees.” Are you talking Celsius (Kelvin) or Fahrenheit?

Q&A “Col, that drivel came from the Pentagon.”

Not sure what drivel you are talking about, wannabe, since you do not reference it by inference or quote ?

How very inexact of you, exactness being something which, I believe is a prerequisite of real science and real scientists.

“(suggest you leave the ad homs at home, it will help your credibility, IMHO).”

Observings ad homs when you refer to something which you imprecisely describe as ‘drivel’ sucks of “hypocrisy”.

Maybe that is what IMHO means – “in my hypocritical opinion”. It certainly does not refer to your “humble opinion”.

Nothing of your patronizing and Self-aggrandizing posts are ever humble.

It all makes you sound a little rattled Q&A, like the rattle of the empty bucket, being blown around by the winds of climate change.

salute

Col dear, for your reference, on 29/4 in this thread I say to Sonofeire :

The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm

It was published in Fortune Magazine and was based on a report made public by the Pentagon.

To which you reply (same day):

“As for “The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.

More drivel from the pretentious wannabe, who cannot produce any scientific credentials.

Some would suggest Oscar Wilde’s play “The Importance of Being Earnest” presented a “dramatic but plausible scenario” and a better amusement than the doomsayers of the climate-change movement, who could have come from Brazil, as Oscar wrote “Where the nuts come from”.

Now, I know it’s early, but is this clear enough for you?

sonofeire, my tone was over the top - but when things are as plain as the nose on your face and people still deny them its hard not to be condescending.

Its seems to me you are living in some sort on fantasy land. On the planet I live on the price of oil hit a new all-time high last night - $120 per barrel. And I thought it was known to man+dog the US hasn't been self sufficient in oil since the 1970's - and its not like they haven't been looking. The idea that within US there is an commercially viable oil field with 150 years supply at todays consumption rates - which by the way is around 3 times the amount of oil consumed by the US during its entire existence so far, is right up there with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. As I sit here typing this I am wondering "why are you bothering to reply to a person with such a loose grip on reality?" I haven't come up with an answer yet, which is a bit of a worry.

To answer your other questions regarding the review of 928 papers. You can find the review here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

I thought it was rather well known. I won't answer your other questions about how review was conducted as I now think I would be wasting my time. If you are really interested in the answers you can read it yourself. It is a very easy read - only one page long.