The readers at WUWT, many of whom are not English, may be interested in a story on the Guardian web site about Trudie Styler, who also happens to be Sting’s wife, and her attitude to climate change (What I Do Is More Important Than What You Do) :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2009/may/15/lost-in-showbiz-trudie-styler

“…more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance.”

This is the same ‘ole, same ‘ole retort I see from people who believe that CO2 from industry is causing global warming. I’ve seen it a hundred times (“ignorant and stupid”). Sorry, it’s not convincing. You’re going to have to do better, like actually use a little valid evidence to make a counter-argument. Then we can have a rational discussion.

If you don’t believe us, take a listen to Dr. Jack Schmitt (he’s a former Apollo astronaut, and geologist). He’s looked at the evidence and says that the global warming alarmists haven’t made a convincing case. If not him, why not listen to James Hansen’s former boss at GISS, Dr. John Theon. He also says that Hansen’s theory doesn’t hold water. In fact, Hansen was caught red handed falsifying temperature data for 2008 to make it look like his theory still worked. I believe Dr. Theon has said that Hansen’s been fudging the numbers for the past 9 years. Secondly, he’s said that Hansen has violated the Hatch Act multiple times.

We need to face facts. Dr. James Hansen has degrees in physics, mathematics, and astronomy. He doesn’t have a degree in climatology or meteorology for that matter. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the greenhouse effect on the planet Venus, and apparently thinks that makes him an expert on Earth’s atmosphere. Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. On Earth the CO2 concentration is 0.038%. The main greenhouse gas on Earth is H2O (water vapor) and has a concentration of about 5%. There is no comparison between Earth’s condition and Venus’s condition. They are opposites of each other. The vast majority of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans, volcanos, and decaying plant matter. The industrial contribution is a mere blip in comparison (a blip of 0.038%).

Global temperatures have fallen slightly for the past 10 years, yet CO2 concentration increased slightly over that period. In addition, CO2 concentration increased from 1945 into the 1970s, yet global temperatures fell over that time period as well, leading some to believe that an ice age was coming (they were wrong, too).

If you like, you can look back into the geological record hundreds and thousands of years and see that CO2 is not a driver of climate change on Earth. There is a correlation, as Al Gore pointed out, but what he did not tell his audience is that CO2 *follows* temperature. It’s a lagging indicator of what temperature *used to be*. It does not lead it on Earth!

The preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no “there” there.

As to what actually influences climate on Earth, legitimate science is still exploring that question. There’s a promising theory that the Sun is the main driver of climate change. Legitimate research also seems to suggest that we are altering the climate a bit by our land use decisions (not because of CO2 emissions).

“Where will these clean energy sources come from? Somewhere.

Who will develop these clean energy sources? Somebody.

How will we make the change work? Somehow.

Just make everything so expensive that somebody somewhere will figure out something that works to make this fantasy real. And if nobody does so willingly, then what? Put them into camps and order them to think? Come up with solutions to problems of his own making on command?”

-Jonathan

Okay, let’s say we use, in the U.S., 80 TWhrs/day (total energy – transportation, electricity, etc.) 80 Billion Kwhrs/day. The U.S. (non-Alaska) is about 8 million sq. km. What’s that, 8 trillion sq meters?

Can you get 4 kwhrs/day per sq meter of solar cells? Let’s say you can. Now, you need 20 billion sq m. 2.5% of land mass. Average county is about 1,000 sq mi. So, an area 5 mi X 5 mi per county would do it. There’s not many counties that couldn’t give up an are 5 mi squared to supply ALL of their energy needs.

Need a lot of storage, of course. Are we going to do that. Of course not. Could we? I guess.

Cost: First Solar says they have achieved $1.00 Watt. Add a buck for profit, shipping, installation, etc. About 3 years GDP.

Seems entirely reasonable for “Peak” electricity in the southern states, though. “”"

Not even close Kum.

NOAA says the total solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is 168 W/m^2. Maybe you can average 15% efficiency to the power grid so tha’s a whole 25 W/m^2 times 24 hours per day is 600 Watt hours per day; so nowhere near your 4 KWh.

Good luck on getting one square metre of 15% or better solar cells for $25 or even $50.

But why not mortgage your house and invest the money in PEV solar energy; you’ll make a killing; most of the people who have it now aren’t nearly as effective at it as you are; so they need the taxpayers to pay for it for them. You’ll be ablke to retire rich; like AlGore.

Interesting that such a large number o people has taken the time to read the very interesting and accurate Hansen’s letter.
How can it be possible that more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance. Is there a software generating these spams?
Hansen is right and we have to spread the word, quickly and convincingly, to head our developped countries toward the huge CO2 cuts we have to perform to protect the climate “”"

You go first John ! and if we like what happens to you, maybe we’ll jump in too; and then; maybe not.

Very well said. As a general rule, in an argument, the first person who argues the arguer, instead of the argument, has lost the argument. When individuals can no longer rely upon their knowledge and intelligence to win an argument, in weakness, some resort to verbal, or written, attack.

1. “Smokey” is either the name of a bear cub rescued from a forest fire, or the name of my wife’s big gray tomcat. Take your pick.

2. If Hansen is right about the climate, why does he “adjust” the charts he shows the public, to *always* show more warming? click And of course CO2 isn’t causing any noticeable global warming: click See? You’re worried about something that isn’t a problem.

3. You’re new here. Maybe you don’t know that this site values polite comments. That’s twice now that you’ve labeled anyone who disagrees with Hansen as stupid or ignorant, and as denialists. Stop it.

Labeling people deniers is unacceptable here. If you have facts, provide them — rather than using your posting privilege to label others as ignorant or stupid. We’re not. Thanks.

“…more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance.”

Are you suggesting that all the rallies and mobs protesting coal fired stations in UK and US and all the contributions to the pro AGW blogs are all climate scientists, physicists and chemists? Let us not forget, an earlier generation of the same crowd stopped nuclear energy development and can take credit, therefore for all the carbon dioxide, smoke and mercury that is being ballyhooed about now. If so many vocal, well-meaning citizens could be so wrong then, why are they likely to be correct now. Are you a scientist yourself M, JeandeBegles or one of the cheering section?

“…more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance.”

Let me get this straight: You are calling other people stupid and ignorant??

I suggest you get up to speed on the subject by reading the WUWT archives. A search of “Hansen” should get you started on the path to enlightenment.