Ot Hustings.

[Bob Neumann]

Oh dear; did you work this all out for yourself, or you have fallen for the lies of the people with commercial and ideological objections to the science?

Let me guess...

[Tim Streater]

Guess? Ah, you must be a climate "scientist". The "science" is largely guesswork, I'm afraid. The scientific method was certainly not applied.

Given the attempts to silence the naysayers, to deny air time to them, to get them fired from their jobs, to deny them research grants, to treat any naysayer as some kind of loony rather than engaging in any sort of debate, I'd certainly say "not proven".

[The Natural Philosopher]

I worked it out for myself, yes.

Well that seems to be your forte.

I prefer to do the rational and mathematical analysis.

But I agree, its a lot more work, thinking for yourself, than 'recieved wisdom'...

[Simon Brown]

We don?t actually. Increased CO2 levels may improve things.

No they don?t, even if you do want to reduce CO2 emissions.

Nukes do that much better and don?t have the variability problem.

No it does not. None of it makes any sense essentially because it hardly ever happens at time of peak demand so you need the baseload power generation for times of peak demand when the micro generation isn't generating.

The only advantage with micro generation is that you don?t have to pay for the fuel when they are generating with most of them. But the fuel cost with nukes used for the time when micro generation is useful is tiny.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The significance of '18 years of no statistically significant warming' has been brushed under the carpet by the warmists. Its true significance is that it gives a 97% confidence that CO2 does NOT cause appreciable global warming after all.

And any scientists who understands statistics and the basic shape of the IPCC models knows that.

Does CO2 cause warming? Almost certainly. Does CO2 account for the global warming in the late 20th century and the absence of it in the 21st? Definitely not. There must be something else in play. Is the climate system sufficiently complex to cause its own warming and cooling periods via long term pseudo random feedback induced oscillations in the major components like ice, sea currents, and winds and water cycles? Almost certainly. Is that all that's going on? Possibly, but the jury is still well out on all that stuff.

So far 40 years of climate science have only reached one firm conclusion. CO2 is not having a major effect.

That's the REAL science.

[Capitol]

Heretic?

[Bob Neumann]

Let's start with a simple question: How do you get that 97% confidence figure?

[bert]

In article , Simon Brown writes

Don't forget you need generating capacity on hot standby all the time burning fuel and producing CO2. So you may as well have CO2 free nukes and run them all the time.