OT. Says it all.

'The report includes nuclear power as a mature low-carbon option'

Colin Bignell

Plus the remark that it is probably a non-option for the reasons I have previously put forward.

They don't say anything of the kind. They warn that its use has declined and that it faces concerns (unfounded IMO) about safety, cost and waste management, but even the IPCC cannot dismiss it as a green option.

Colin Bignell

Are the IPCC to be treated by the BBC et al as authoritative on economics and politics as they are on the science of climate change?

the irony is that IPCC has in fact got nothing to say on whether or not man made climate change is happening.

Their brief is to examine the impacts of human induced climate change,. not consider whether it exists at all.

At best they only discuss how fast its happening.

You've never put any reasons forward. Plenty of c*ck, I'll allow that.

Utter baloney. This is the third part of their report. The first examined the existence and cause of global warming, and concluded that it was man-made. The second examined the likely consequences, and the third discussed possible solutions.

It is a CO2 reducing option, not a green option.

The reasons I have put forward are, expense and waste disposal. Exactly the pointsmentioned in the article.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, would disagree with you.

Colin Bignell

We've covered waste disposal a number of times. Your response is "la la la I can't hear you".

As has also been pointed out, expense is a function of government inaction and dithering, nothing else.

You still haven't shown a place where the waste has benn sccessfully disposed of, never mind successfully disposed of cheaply.

Evrywhere in the world?

Straw man, harry. What counts is that, as I reported last year, waste from reactors has been glassified these 20 years. Once that is done, where it's stored after that is not important. And each time we point out that the legacy waste is from the bomb programme, you go "la la la" again.

Not in France, where back in the day they had the sense to get on with it. Now it looks like, with Hollande, they will also go down the soft-headed route like the Germans and Italians. Meanwhile the Germans get half their volts from burning coal, with a large proportion of lignite, just about the worst polluting stuff you can burn.

No, what is clear is that nuclear can be built cheaply, if governments decide to do it.

I suggest you go to their website and actually read the terms of reference.

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

Nowhere in there is there any role to question whether it actually exists or not..at the very BEST they may assess how MUCH "human-induced climate change" there is, but never ever do they address the fundamental issue of whether its so small as to make their whole organisation completely redundant.