On 13/11/2014 13:58, Bill Wright wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:


There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2
levels (and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming
stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we
have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

Only in lala land that you inhabit. 2010 and 2005 were as hot as 1998 to
within the experimental error on the global temperature time series.

All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be wrong.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. The
orthodoxy at the moment is that non-linear ocean currents are to blame
for the recent inflection. Personally I subscribe to the Keeling tides
conjecture and think that there is a cyclic component at around 60 years
responsible for the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000 superimposed on a
rising trend. There is good reason to suppose that it is related to
tidal forcing and periodicities inherent in the lunar solar cycle.

Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can expect
another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from 2020 onwards
(and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present are being held
back by increased churn dumping more heat into the deep oceans (which in
turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

What do you want to do with them then? What's the advantage of leaving
them in the ground?

Feedstock for the chemicals industry has to come from somewhere. It will
be very tedious when we have to mine rubbish dumps for plastics.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.

To maintain our standard of living. What's wrong with that? Humanity
owns this planet. It's ours to use to the best advantage.

We don't have to go back to living in caves like the greens seem to
want, just be more conservative and less profligate with wasted energy.
TBH there was more zing to the 1970's OPEQ induced Oil Crisis "Save It"
campaign than there has ever been with the Climate Change.

I realise the concept of "good stewardship" is beyond you. But best
advantage does not mean burning through it all as quickly as possible.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown