Climate Rationalists have assembled an open letter to the Bali climate conference. Signatories include Bob Carter and Lord Lawson of Blaby.
The letter begins:
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The letter is published in the Canadian National Post here. The signatories are here, and there is an editorial here.
Accomplishments of selected signatories of
the open letter to the U.N. Secretary General
The study of climate change in relation to public policy encompasses many areas of research and scholarship; most are well represented amongst the signatories to the letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon.
The press release that accompanies the publication of the letter contains the following statement:
“The signatories to the letter include many distinguished professional persons who have occupied leading positions in national and international science organizations, government organizations and universities, and have been elected as fellows of distinguished scientific academies or awarded prestigious science prizes.”
In no particular order, here are some examples of the accomplishments of selected signatories to the letter
AWARDS & POSITIONS
President, World Federation of Scientists – ZICHICHI
Director of a national research funding agency (The Australian Research Council) – AITKIN
Director General of a comprehensive national research agency (The New Zealand DSIR) – KEAR
Chairman of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation – JAWOROWSKI
Laureate of the UNEP Global 500 environmental program – BRYSON
Director of the Australian National Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program – CARTER
Director of a national weather observing agency (US Satellite Weather Service) – SINGER
Director of the Australian National Climate Centre – KININMONTH
Director of Research, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service – TENNEKES
Director of the French (CNRS) Laboratory of Climatology – LEROUX
Director, Institute of Environmental Science (Carlton University) – MICHEL
Head of the Forecasting Centre, Norwegian Meteorological Institute – MOENE
University Pro-Vice-Chancellor – ENDERSBEE
State Geologist (Kansas) – GERHARD
Director of Russian Institute for Economic Analysis, Advisor to President Putin – ILLARIANOV
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (Thatcher government) – LORD LAWSON
Dep. Secretary of the Treasury (Australia) – MOORE
President of the WMO Commission for Climatology – MAUNDER
Recipient of the Donner Prize (best book on Canadian Public Policy) – MCKITRICK
Recipient of Meisinger and Charney Awards (American Meteorological Society) – LINDZEN
Recipient of Mills Medal in Cloud Physics of the Royal Meteorological Society – AUSTIN
Recipient of Petr Beckmann Award for “courage and achievement in the defense of scientific truth” – IDSO
Recipient of Chapman Medal (Royal Astronomical Society of London) – AKASOFU
Recipient of the Max Planck Medal – DYSON
Recipient of the Percy Nicholls Award recognizing notable scientific achievement – ESSENHIGH
Editor of an environmental journal (Energy & Environment) – BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Editor of a biological journal (American Midland Naturalist) – EVANS
Editorial Board member (Climate Research) – KHANDEKAR
IPCC expert reviewers – GRAY, COURTNEY
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science – LINDZEN
Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand – AUSTIN, CARTER
Fellow of the Geological Society of America – EASTERBROOK
Fellow of the American Geophysical Union – AKOSOFU
Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society – WEGMAN
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science – PALTRIDGE
Hon. Member of the Royal Geological Society of the Netherlands – VAN LOON
ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS
Professor of Environmental Sciences – SINGER
Professor of Climatology – BALL, MALBERG, LEROUX
Professor of Meteorology – GRAY, W., BRYSON, LINDZEN
Professor of Atmospheric Science – LUPO, PALTRIDGE, ROPER
Professor of Oceanography – O’BRIEN
Professor of Quaternary Geology – KARLEN, TOM VAN LOON
Professor of Geology – VAN LOON, PLIMER, CARTER, EASTERBROOK, OLLIER, PATTERSON
Professor of Sedimentology – PRATT
Professor Marine Geology – WINTERHALTER
Professor of Isotope Geology – CLARK, PRIEM
Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics – MORNER
Professor Chemistry – KAUFFMAN, STILBS
Professor of Physics – HAYDEN, ANDRESEN, AKOSOFU, ANDRESEN, AUSTIN, DYSON, ZICHICHI
Professor of Mathematical & Theoretical Physics – GERLICH
Professor of Applied Mathematics – ESSEX
Professor of Statistics – WEGMAN
Professor of Economics – MILNE
Professor Geotechnology – KROONENBERG
Professor for Innovation and Technology Management – WILKSCH
Professor of Energy Conversion – ESSENHIGH, KOUFFELD
Professor of Engineering – MACALIK, ALEXANDER, ENDERSBEE
Professor of Public Health Engineering – KOP
Professor of Chemical Engineering – THOENES
Distinguished Emeritus Professors – 24 in total
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Some consensus! Me thinks the debate is far from over!
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
I doubt that Ban Ki-Moon would read beyond “It is not possible to stop climate change,…”
True – he’s probaly more concerned with the fact it’s not possible to obtain a meaningful deal in Bali.
Its not possible to stop cancer (which can occur naturally) but that doesn’t mean we should all take up smoking and eat asbestos.
This would be funny were it not that some people would take this joke seriously.
Meanwhile, this is what the qualified scientific community has to say about ongoing climate change http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html
Dear Dad’s Army, con artistes, clapped out retirees, denialists & tobacco shills,
Re: The planet.
Thank you for your letter of concern.
Noted.
ROTFL and L_our_AO.
Regards and best wishes
The IPCC.
What a disgraceful letter really – Motty’s name wasn’t even on it. This omission means they are not serious and it was hastily written.
A group of scientists, including some of those who signed the above letter, have been excluded from holding a press conference in Bali for a second time.
Bryan Leyland said, “This morning I confirmed we had the main conference hall for 9:00 AM tomorrow. At 4:30 PM today, I found that Barbara Black bumped us off the schedule and closed further bookings.”
Earlier in the week, UN officials apparently closed down the groups first press conference and demanded the scientists leave or be physically removed by the police.
la la la I can’t hear you!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/14/2118585.htm
“The head of the U.N. panel on climate change compared him [Bjorn Lomborg] to Hitler. Another leading scientist called him a parasite. A third described his latest book as a “stealth attack” on mankind.
“The list of allegations against Bjoern Lomborg, one of the world’s leading climate change skeptics, almost reads like an indictment for war crimes.
“… mainstream scientists have stifled healthy intellectual discourse by demonizing dissenters as oil industry lobbyists or lunatics.
“I really think it reflects entirely on them,” said Lomborg, a mild-mannered Danish statistician who says global warming isn’t a big threat and that international treaties requiring sharp and immediate cuts in carbon emissions would cost a lot but do little good.
“Angry words and table-pounding, he said, only show “that your argument is not that strong.”
Anthony and Luke, Read more here: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071213/climate_naysayers.html?.v=1
Thanks David for the link BUT
The HADCRUT3 data show the global temp to be declining over the last decade and that 2007 is about the 7th warmest year in this data.
For some reason these facts are NOT shown in the report at your link.
what are you trying to prove Jen?
“However, he added, contrarians “who choose to mislead the public” on what science says about climate change cannot expect to escape being chastised.
That the planet is getting warmer is well-documented by scientific data, so skeptics now mainly challenge the majority view on the scope of the problem.
“Whether or not it’s happening is not the point. It’s obviously happening,” said Pat Michaels, a senior fellow of environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
“How much will it be … and what should you do about it? That’s where the debate should be. But that debate is being driven by very shrill rhetoric.”
Lomborg – “It’s true my opponents seem to have won the battle of words, but it seems to me I’ve won the battle of the reality,” he said. “Because nations are actually doing very little about climate change.”
Well, now thats something to be proud of!
Notice how the WMO has stooped to reporting on “the linear trend” in temperature from the 1960s low? This is totally dishonest because it implies that a warming trend starts at the bottom of a trough when we all know that it starts from the last high point, ie, 1934-44.
This is the same scam pulled by Church, Hunter et al who do the same thing for the sea level rise from the low of 1993. They claim a 3mm annual rise over that period as some sort of indicator of long term trend when the same trend in reverse was present in the years prior to 1993.
The treatment of the sceptics in Bali is not surprising. It was was always clear that we were dealing with immoral scum.
google the following
‘climate change negative impact’ – 304,000 results
‘climate change positive impact’ – 245,000 results
Clearly inaction is worse than action Jen, I mean really, you can’t argue with the numbers.
Yep Motty, spot on, warming started in 1934. How is your excel model of climate change progressing?
Hey Jen, I really recommend you read this
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
you’ll find it really interesting
Ban Ki Moon sees catastrophic AGW as a way to rocket the UN to the position it ardently hopes for–a world government.
If you believe strongly enough in the notion of world government, telling lies becomes a “constructive and beneficial” activity.
OK – here’s world govt crap. Yo Schiller.
Come on Jen – I’m sure Lomborg has lost lots of sleep – he’s been in there with a baseball bat swinging away for years – and somebody has said “boo” back and it’s all so offensive. Really!?
What are you guys complaining about – you’re in the Australian newspaper.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22921996-11949,00.html
Article 4 under Climate special. So much for silencing dissent.
You guys are betting the bank on your current line – one warmer year or Artic keeps going at the current pace – and you will ALL never be listened to ever again.
I have to agree with Motty for once though “The treatment of the sceptics in Bali is not surprising. It was was always clear that we were dealing with immoral scum.”
Yes agree !
Luke,
I can agree with you once in a while. Lomborg offers facts, and, as you say, “somebody has said “boo” back [to him]…”
Saying “boo” is hardly a refutation, and claiming that it’s a refutation *is* an ‘offensive’ notion, as you generously pointed out.
Perhaps you truncated the expression, ‘boo hoo’.
Hi all,
Well I reckon that the letter is probably the last gasp. It is so patently out of step that it only serves to have the rest of the world move quietly to another part the room. These guys are bit like senile older relatives, they are tolerated, even respected but not taken seriously.
But of course I’ve been brainwashed …
cheers
Patrick,
Lawrie: Skeptics don’t challenge scope; they challenge cause. How much is natural? How much is anthropogenic? How much of the anthropogenic is carbon related? Global circulation models do only what they were designed to do; they attempt to determine a rise in temperature.
Unsmoothed global temp, PDO, and AMO data for the 20th century indicate that oceans drive global temperature–somewhat obvious since they cover 70% of the planet. The latter part of the 20th century also had the highest solar irradiance in 8000 years, the timing of which corresponds to the Holocene Climate Optimum. Optimum, presently an unusual word for elevated global temperature.
Twenty, twenty-five years from now, when global temperatures have dropped over one degree C–not due to mankind’s attempts–and shortened growing seasons have caused massive food shortages, our present shortsightedness will astound our children.
Regards.
I sense even here that some are perceiving, or characterising, the letter as being a denial of the existence of climate change. The real area of dispute seems to be whether the change is caused by man, and whether there’s anything that can be done to stop it.
The letter writers seem to be of the view that we’d be better off spending money on managing the effects of climate change than trying to prevent it. It is certainly a possibility that vast wealth could be squandered on ineffective attempts to prevent the change, leaving us less well equipped financially to deal with the effects that will still occur.
Even if man is causing the change, or part of it, that doesn’t necessarily mean that removing the causes is the optimum solution. If the dissenters are being effectively silenced in Bali, that is a particularly objectionable course for the organisers to be taking, and makes it look as if the issue is more political than scientific – but given the number of politicians involved, that shouldn’t be surprising.
“… mainstream scientists have stifled healthy intellectual discourse by demonizing dissenters as oil industry lobbyists or lunatics.”
that includes a sizable proportion of them. The truth hurts.
“A group of scientists, including some of those who signed the above letter, have been excluded from holding a press conference in Bali for a second time.
Bryan Leyland said, “This morning I confirmed we had the main conference hall for 9:00 AM tomorrow. At 4:30 PM today, I found that Barbara Black bumped us off the schedule and closed further bookings.”
Earlier in the week, UN officials apparently closed down the groups first press conference and demanded the scientists leave or be physically removed by the police.”
the conference is about what to do about global warming, not whether it exists or not. They are free to say and do whatever they want at their own conference.
Sorry, Lawrie. Previous post should have been addressed to Anthony.
Paul, you should move “futile” to the beginning of this thread’s title.
The Hierarchy of Climate Rationalist arguments:
“There is no global warming”
“There is global warming but it is natural”
“There is natural global warming and some anthopogenic contribution to that warming”
“We’re in an ice age, global warming is a good thing”
“There is global warming, humans are the cause but there is nothing we can do about it”
“Global Warming can only be solved by techology so we need to promote economic growth to fund the development of a technological solutions”
Bob, I just took Pat Michaels quote directly.
don’t shoot the messenger brother.
Please point me in the direction of evidence for your claims
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001291reality_check.html
Why are the policymakers in Bali currently are avoiding the elephant in the room?
I think there’s more than one elephant!:
– Unadjusted temperatures peaking 10 years ago
– Temperatures adjusted for volcanic transients showing little or no increase for 25 years
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/Charts.html?1197437190605
Current temperatures at levels experienced back in WWII. Just look at the southern hemisphere! What warming?
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/WiggleWatcher-SH.html?1197568695748
Mark’s back pocket volcano adjustment pers comm eh? That’s believable – “I found it on the internet”… on my own site. ROTFL. New standard for source. ME !!!
Really … you should at least add in the current La Nina too.
If you think ocean hasn’t warmed from that dataset you’re silly. I reckon you’re looking a the zero line – which is simply arbitrary for calculating an anomaly. Any sensible person would say it’s warmed heaps as a trend with plenty of seasonal variation.
Why just pick the southern hemisphere – will be slower to warm anyway.
Next !
Mark gives me the excuse with the link to HAD s/h SST graph to crow over AGW influences contained within. See again the most obvious discontinuity, about half a degree at the end of 1945 and a similar spike at 1918.
Tell me why WW1 & 2 are not relevant hey!
For the sake of a good argument Luke; I reckon both those wartime increases in global SST were caused by fleets of battleships etc operating mostly north of the equator.
Thanks Proteus – says it all:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001291reality_check.html
Lomborg and Prins/Rayner are right – Kyoto style policies are futile.
Futile:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/futile
Denialists – ineffective
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ineffective
We’ll see.
Luke,
Easy enough to takes shots eh? Well boy wonder, why don’t YOU show us what you think the adjusted temperature record looks like for the last 25 years once you take volcanic transients into account? And don’t pretend there should be no adjustment!
As to the SH record,I guess CO2 doesn’t cross the equator! Given that current temperatures are now on par with those in the 40’s, no need to worry about global warming in your part of the world! Apparently nature can overwhelm anything man can through at her!
“The letter writers seem to be of the view that we’d be better off spending money on managing the effects of climate change than trying to prevent it. It is certainly a possibility that vast wealth could be squandered on ineffective attempts to prevent the change, leaving us less well equipped financially to deal with the effects that will still occur.”
Indeed that is why I signed, rich people can better cope than poor people. Rich people can afford environmental cleanup. Taking measures today is like your kid who contributes his pocket money to your energy bill: cute but ineffective.
Mark – really if that is the standard of your debate give it away now.
So you think the SH might be different to the NH and why? Do you think the Antarctic polar vortex might be different to the Arctic. Do we really even have to do that discussion – are you that thick?
Why worry about the last 25 years. Try 120 years. Take climate forcings from known factors – i.e. solar, volcanic etc. You can get the first half of the 20th century but you do not get anywhere near what’s require to move the temperature for the latter part of the 20th century and 21st century with using CO2 forcing or magic pixie dust.
All that is discussed in tedious detail in the 4AR – So as some tricked up punk saying it’s otherwise with a personal web site with volcano wiggles hand-drawn and no supporting publications, it’s encumbent on you matey to list your estimates of forcings (in watts not hand waving handdrawings)of any climate factors you like for the last 100 years or whatever period you’d like.
Gotcha! Can’t come up with a real answer can you you chicken shit! The whole point is that the temperature excluding volcanic transients hasn’t moved a whimper over the last 25 years! Soem Co2 forcing! Ante up or move away from the table!
Luke is becoming increasingly garbled.
Has he switched from beer to bourbon?
Rot – what’s your basis for saying volcanos have any significant effect – how did you do your calculations – pulled out of your bum I suspect. They have had very little effect apart from individual years.
So it’s Mark’s anonymous web link with unknown bullshit calcs vs the climate science community – get a grip you wanker.
It’s not solar – it’s not volcanoes – it’s CO2 forcing from multiple lines of evidence.
All ya gotta do punky boy is write up your basis for YOUR calculation and why – put it on your award winning web site. Stop hand waving and do it.
Mark – “Gotcha! Can’t come up with a real answer can you you chicken shit! The whole point is that the temperature excluding volcanic transients hasn’t moved a whimper over the last 25 years! Soem Co2 forcing! Ante up or move away from the table!”
No you have not got him. Like has very very patiently (more than perhaps I would) explained why the Southern Hemisphere is different. Why don’t you buy a cheap world globe and look at the SH compared to the NH. Volcanic action, while significant, is more transient.
The person doing the ‘corrections’ would need to supply the reasons and methodology.
Anthony:
PDO Data
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/pdo.txt
Data Source
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/biondi2001/biondi2001.html
AMO Data and Source
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/amo-gray2004.txt
Select the global instrument temperature record of your choice. Unsmoothed, please.
Throw the data into a spreadsheet and make some graphs of the past century or so. Funny how they seem to interrelate.
Then go back and look again at Fig 2.9 of the IPCC TAR. The third cell shows the annual temperature trends from 1946 to 1975. IMHO, all those blue dots over the Atlantc and Pacific would be hard pressed to be the result of anthropogenic aerosols, especially with side-by-side comparisons to graphs of the corresponding AMO, PDO, and global temp data.
Regards
that’s right bob, they tried really hard to hide it from everyone, but you cracked it. You’re a real corker, mate.
Meanwhile in “The Australian”, (so it must be true).
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22927373-11949,00.html
“MOST of southern Australia has recorded its hottest year on record.
And while there are optimistic forecasts for better than average rainfall over summer, higher temperatures mean much of the water is not getting into Australia’s storage systems.
National Climate Centre chief Michael Coughlan yesterday said a La Nina weather event, bringing above average rains, was now well-established.
“The chances of exceeding the median rainfall for summer are between 60 and 70 per cent in a large area extending from southeast Queensland across both the northern inland and east of NSW,” he said. “However temperatures are likely to be higher than average, resulting in higher evaporation.”
Dr Coughlan said the nation was now split into two distinct north-south weather zones.
The southern part of the nation, from Brisbane across to the west coast, experienced its warmest year on record — the Murray Darling Basin region in particular.
The chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, said while inflows to the basin were slightly improved this year, most recent figures again showed they were heading in the wrong direction.
She said there was enough water to keep most permanent plantings along the river alive over summer, but warned the level of the Murray in the lower lakes could fall from its present level of 1cm above sea level to 60cm below by March next year.
“The way we are operating the river is like nothing in living memory,” Dr Craik said.
“While there had been good rainfall in November, higher temperatures, evaporation and lower runoff kept inflows well below average. Inflows over the 2006-07 were just 55 per cent of the previous minimum on record. The two years to the end of November were the lowest two-year inflows on record.”
Their comments came in response to the latest assessment of global climate conditions released yesterday by the World Meteorological Organisation. It said the decade between 1998 and 2007 was the warmest on record, with average temperatures rising by about 0.4C. ”
In no particular order, here are some examples of the accomplishments of selected signatories to the letter
Jennifer, is this list yours, Andrew Bolt`s or something that the organizers gave both of you? It`s interesting, but seems like a little bit of work.
Sean Corrigan also posted this at the Mises blog; I have a few comments up here:
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/14/quot-heroic-quot-expert-voices-proven-wrong-on-agw-make-another-slick-cry-for-relevance-at-bali.aspx
Hi Bob, interesting.
How does that prove climate is driven by oceans? and that we are headed for 1 degree cooling (which will devastate crop seasons)?
“It’s not solar – it’s not volcanoes – it’s CO2 forcing from multiple lines of evidence.”
Um nope, you can’t convict CO2 through lack of evidence for the other suspects. There is still a huge gap between theoretical climate sensitivity of 1 K/2xCo2 and the proclaimed “best value” of 3K/2xCO2.
Ever heard about soot on snow?
Hans
The IPCC have already run the models with all natural influences, but no CO2, and all natural influences, with CO2. CO2 is the missing link in explaining the rising temperature.
Anthony, I believe I wrote oceans drive global temperature. Since the oceans cover seventy percent of the planet and land occupies thirty percent, then global surface temp would be governed by the simple equation:
GST = (SST x 0.7) + (LST x 0.3)
If the oceans drop 1 degree and the land rises 1 degree, global temperature drops 0.4 degrees. Which drives global temperature? The oceans.
But do the AMO and PDO drive climate? There are numerous paleoclimatological papers available online that illustrate their effects on droughts, rainfall, river flow, etc., for Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and the Americas. Too many to quote and they’re too easy to google.
Regarding a temperature drop of one degree twenty years from now: Of course I can’t prove we are headed for 1 degree cooling. And no one can prove that we will continue to head in the opposite direction. My greatest fear about all this warming hoopla is that it will lead us in one direction, without contingency plans for the other. Can the IPCC propose such a contingency? Doubtful. They’re too tied into AGW caused by greenhouse gases. Suppose Theodore Landscheidt was right, that we’re headed for another solar minimum by 2030, that the result is the next Little Ice Age. You can’t grow crops in snow. You can shift agriculture locale, but there are those without that option, just as there are those without that option if elevated temperatures increases desertification in some areas.
Happy Holidays
Suppose one lone nutter is right, and the collective output of the experts in the field is wrong. Do you back the long shot in the Melbourne Cup, like the rest of the mugs?
“The IPCC have already run the models with all natural influences, but no CO2, and all natural influences, with CO2. CO2 is the missing link in explaining the rising temperature.”
IPCC doesn’t run models, IPCC evaluates models.
I’ve seen models with 1 K/2xco2 behaving very well, however if you start fiddling with parametrisations (like aerosols) you can get any result. The hottest models have the poorest fit to the data. Also, any parameter that has the same time series as log(CO2) – a simple linear trend – can be substituted, from which there are many to choose. Models are not performing at the regional level, and this is where CO2-fingerprinting can be tested.
Hans Erren – “There is still a huge gap between theoretical climate sensitivity of 1 K/2xCo2 and the proclaimed “best value” of 3K/2xCO2.”
However the gap is even wider for the other suspects. Cosmic rays have not made it out of the laboratory and the Sun’s irradiance is almost constant.
In the light of this greenhouse gas driven warming is the most likely suspect. There are no rivals with equal scientific backing.
Ender
Again: you can’t use the lack of proof for other mechanisms to promote a catatrophic climate sensitivity fot CO2! The aerosols are the twiddling factor, CO2 by itself also doesn’t give sufficient warming. What’s the observational evidence for strong aerosol cooling?
BTW, are you aware of the Engelbeen Oxford experiment?
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
Thanks Bob, we’ll just plan for every extreme contingency we can think of then. What do you think the chances of financing that are?
Apparently the choice we face is windfills or safe roads. I see no way out – especially since I buried my head in the sand.
SJT quotes Wendy Craik, need one say any more?
25 years, Duke Doofus, 25 years of nil response to increased CO2. Now lets take another look at that CO2 sensitivity stuff, shall we?