This is not a new concept, but is difficult for most people to comprehend.

For example the life cycle emissions of the prius most likely exceed that of the corrolla, whilst the damage to the environment due to the lead acid batteries far exceeds that of most other cars.

like wise, electric cars are responsible for nearly double the emmissions of CO2 due to the inefficiencies of generation and storage.

Renewable fuels require considerable farming resources that starve people in developing countries.

Whilst all these solutions being pushed by the greens have a attractive face the unseen consequences are generally far worse.

As the general populace is not technically trained, in depth challenges to the greens' sound bite sloganism passes over their heads and public opinion is thus superficial and uninformed.

I would thus strongly support any environmental claims to be forced to publish the net life cycle energy analysis.

Mr Right, Ludwig
I wonder is your views aren’t a little short sighted.
The accuracy of the explanation for global warming maybe moot but is that the real issue? The article is primarily about the methodologies of measuring anthropomorphic carbon released into the atmosphere.
Ignoring the scientists (I assume you mean only on GW) is an overtly short sighted approach ‘GW’ (a catch phrase) is a small part of the real topic Global Climate Dynamics. If we consider the PROVEN affects of changing landscapes we get the following rough equation.

Less trees/ vegetation changes= changes in heat over land = air pressures changes +changes in wind = changes in cloud formation= El Niño, La Nina intensities= changes in rain patterns= equal drought no water in the Murray.
This is the chain for ONE aspect of weather there are many more. Climate has many weathers.

The points here are:-
- Our science/models/methodologies (the latter is the point of the article) aren’t yet up to absolute accuracy
- The impact of specific elements on the equation (currently too complex).
- therefore trend level analysis is the safest
- If science tells us anything it is that everything is linked to everything else:-
1. Chaos mathematics,
2. group analysis,
3. Degrees of separation etc.
(Opposite to Mr Rights “in isolation” argument)

The world is undeniably a limited resource to ignore this is like jumping being adrift in unknown seas with 1000 litres of fresh water and showering or washing off the decks with the water. One scientist is telling you to conserve and the other is suggesting we’ve got heaps so be profligate with it (business as usual). (Cornucopia or Magic Pudding arguments Ludwig).
Add to that the vagaries/failures of economics, capitalism.
The above clearly indicate the inappropriateness of the ‘black or white’ approach. Considered conservation, increased effort in alternative sources of more efficient power and changes in profligate attitudes are clearly required. The impact would be minimal and leave us poised to ramp up depending on more scientific proof

try study of facts
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-record-low-temperatures-hit-america.html/all-comments/#comments

know you are being played
http://au.youtube.com/profile?user=oneundergod&view=favorites

computers can model anything [rubbish in rubbish out]

Examinator,
I don't think anyone here, especially Ludwig is promoting
the magic pudding.
Here we are running around in a panic about GW and there is probably
nothing we can do about it, whether because it is not real or the
Chinas of this world will go ahead building their power station a
fortnight, while peak oil is upon us now.

I know, I know,
If you are not in a panic you don't understand the true situation !

Colin Campbell predicted that one of the earliest symptoms of peak
oil would be high oil prices and a financial crash.
This may well be it.
We can look in the rear view mirror in a year or two and confirm it.
However we are not talking about 2020 and 2050, we are talking about
the next two to five years, thats what the politicians should
be in a panic about, instead of refusing to even utter the words
peak oil.
There is only one government in the world that is taking peak oil
seriously, the Queensland government. It is at least trying to
understand what they might have to do in such a large state that
relies on transport oil to such an extent.

Having watched the renewable energy and energy efficiency scene for nearly twenty years I have seen most of the arguments spelt out, denied, spelt out again.

Two themes emerge from all that.

1. Being efficient with energy is the least cost and most effective way of reducing the carbon problem.

2. Coupling carbon free ( no fossil fuel usage) technologies with No 1 will take us a very long way forward.

No. 1 sounds easy but can be hard to sell even despite the fact that we all spend money on electricity we do not need. (Why pump water uphill at three am in an ornamental setting when no one is watch it?) Why stand in the bar of a pub and burn $100 notes from the takings? Both actual case studies I was involved with.

Is there any good reason why you dear reader have NOT done a simple energy consumption audit of your own home and figured why your bills are so high?

Bill

Examinator, I’m not sure how you could consider my ponderance to be short-sighted. The possibility of a quick peak in CO2 emissions being far less damaging than a long drawn-out emissions scenario seems to me to be anything but short-sighted or narrowly focussed. BTW, I’m only posing possibilities, I’m certainly not presenting the view that I think we should just give up and go with business as usual.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean by “(Cornucopia or Magic Pudding arguments Ludwig).”