Tim Watts wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 28/11/2011 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/11/2011 16:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
It is more likely to be around 2K but could be higher.

No. I said IF YOU TAKE OUT THE FUDGE FACTOR.
But if you look at the data it is pretty clear that the net effect
observed so far due to GHG predicts something around 2K/century going
forward. It is splitting hairs to haggle over how much of that change
is driven by exactly which greenhouse gas.
No it really is NOT clear. It depends utterly which data you cherry pick.

Problem with all this is:

I don't trust any of the sods as there are too many lobbyists who have
"green" interests, eg PV panel manufacturers and installers.

There are also an arse load of procarbon lobbyists (eg oil companies).

So I, as a partially scientific bod who's essentially a layman WRT climate
issues distrusts *everyone*.


That is the best and most pragmatic position to take.


How do you know who to listen to unless you have the time and the background
to go through the papers and/or the data?


Well exactly.


Why are several countries pulling out of Kyoto - do they know something?


Yes.

Is it all CO2's fault or is it random solar activity that we are powerless
to stop?


Both. Plus other things: The important thing is how much is down to each
element.

Right now my best expression of what is 'we don't really know' plus a
'and I STRONGLY SUSPECT that CO2 is not the only, nor yet the main,
issue: and that is dangerous - to be committed to a one element policy
blinds us to possible other AGW (or natural) sources, or indeed other
things we might be doing with the money'

Its exactly the same with renewable energy: It blinds us to
alternatives. In our haste to 'do something' we run the risk of doing
worse than nothing.


Cheers

Tim