Neal (17:44:31) :
Sorry, as far as I know, the only rationalisation for carbon equivalence is that nuclear is bad and cannot be counted as CO2 reduction.
DaveE.

The IPCC was set up with the prior assumption that AGW was a reality, and the scientists were funded, not to produce a dispassionate assessment of that reality, but to provide credible confirmation of their master’s thesis. Of course this was not science, but propaganda similar to that employed by the Nazis using science to demonstrate the inferiority of the Jews.
One has to enquire about whether there is an underlying motive for the promotion of AGW, rather than AGW itself. Questions like this have usually been answered by following the money, and one awaits the revelations with great interest.

So writes a meteorologist. But what would he know, he’s only a meteorologist, not a – wait for it – CLIMATE SCIENTIST!
Funny how people who actually know something about the weather and are content to call themselves meteorolgists or climatologists seem to be by and large CO2/AGW sceptical.
Could it be that “Climate Science” is a field invented by and for AGW believers who either choose not to call themselves meteor-/climatologists, because that’s not where the grant money is, or who in addition may not do so because they are in fact neither?
If so it shouldn’t surprise us if they “overwhelmingly” endorse AGW. Nor should it impress us.

At least one of the emails talked about misappropriation of funds. Where I come from that would get me some nice jail time.

I don’t want to go too far off topic, here, but I do want to point out that the world will not run out of oil…unless it is taken off of the free market. Even assuming we know of every single oil reserver there is on the planet (we don’t), before we get to the point where we are anywhere near emptying them one of two things will happen: A.) rising prices will drive technology advances to increase production rates from known reserves (get more out of the ground than is currently financially justifiable); or B.) rising prices will reach a point where it justifies switching to another source of energy which, up to that point, had been less cost effective than oil — something like bio-fuels and renewable energy.
The problem with “peak oilers” is the same as with other “alarmists”…you forget to look at history and economics. There was a very similar “scare” regarding the primary power source in the late 1800’s — coal. And the talking heads at the time (including some very prominent economists) talked the same garbage about cutting back, limiting use, etc. They even dismissed the idea of oil, OIL, being used as a replacement — wasn’t cheap enough, and was in too small a supply! It would NEVER work, they said.
A great, more full example on why we will never run out of oil (or any other freely traded resource) can be read here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=760789&p=1

Immolate (13:15:40) :
I had to read through your comment several times, it was so enjoyable. Believe is a word best left to religion.
Roger (14:31:03) : “and I’m open to anybody’s logical science to convince me otherwise. ”
First, it is my contention the science currently can not determine what the effects will be of additional C02 in the atmosphere. I’m sure you have heard of the butterfly effect, when small changes in environment cause enormous changes in large complex systems. A good example of this was Bush being elected due to the butterfly ballots in Florida. The unintuitive ballots gave Bush the election and the world is a different place. On the other hand, the press calling Florida for Bush early may have easily have removed many votes for Bush too, another example of how small individual mistakes can have huge changes.
The modelers are creating models of what they know, running them on computers to take as many factors as they know into account. But as has been mentioned, there are many systems that aren’t understood at present, and so I’m waiting for the observations to match the models. They got it wrong this last ten years. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis of AGW is wrong, only the models aren’t good enough to convince me.
More disturbing is the evidence that the AGW scientists are tampering with observation, trying to crush opposition to their hypothesis in nefarious and conspiratorial ways, and intentionally running afoul of freedom of information act requests, thereby stopping others from verifying the results. If my understanding of these acts is correct, those who participated should lose their tenure and their positions.
It seems your primary question is “If additional C02 should warm the planet, then how can it not?” My hypothesis is that if the earth had a great deal of climate sensitivity, life would not exist in the form we know it. While it is posited there have been major events (snowball earth, for instance, meteor strikes, massive volcano activity) that have changed life significantly and in fact may have been necessary for life. Here is a layman’s article that discusses this (in wattsupwiththat, of course): http://tinyurl.com/ydsp3em.
Furthermore, If Bentley’s Lord Monckton is correct, our current biofuel activities as spurred by AGW are starving to death millions due to a global increase in food prices. The stakes of AGW is not some parlor game, but a massive restructuring of the economy . Someplace in this blog, you will find a discussion about what the Senate climate bill would do in terms of the carbon footprint. It puts the allowed individual carbon footprint back to the 1800s. But still, politicians who are acting on this “science,” which in my view at present is a painter’s incomplete painting of the world, are talking about major and massive changes. Changes that are unthinkable to most of the world regardless of the potential costs.
Let us say AGW is actually happening. Al Gore and the Democrats should convert from coal right away to nuclear. They aren’t doing this because they are using AGW as a tool to achieve a political agenda. And nuclear is cheaper than coal anyway.
Second, if there really were a pinch, let us say C02 is really bad, there is a startup company run by an ex Microsoft exec that points out there has been global dimming in the past due to volcanic activity, and we could simply push some sulfur up into the atmosphere at the cost of $250M/year or something. Perhaps it is really a few billion, but compared to what those who would control our lives, it is a tiny amount.
Nevertheless, as open minded people, like Immolate says, we must keep open minds. No one knows the truth, and “belief” is a word for religious people, not scientists. At present, all the data being used to publish AGW papers should be released, along with their methods. There are too many smoking guns, too much evidence data has been tampered with, and too much conspiring to stop contrary scientific papers.
In my view, being a skeptic is the only correct position at this time. Even someone who has as a hypothesis C02 is causing a global rise in temperatures should be skeptical of their own hypothesis. Instead, many of these people seem to be using unscientific methods to arrive at the conclusion of their hypothesis.

Jim(15:38:40) Thanks for the great link to physicist Jasper Kirkby at CERN. The lecture and slides on climate record data, cosmic rays and cloud experiments was illuminating. An opportunity to watch a real scientist at work!

ShrNfr,
“Fusion reactors sound nice and clean, but in reality they are very, very dirty at the moment. You produce the heat in the fusion process by slowing the nuclear fragments produced in the process. This leads to radioactive waste in large quantities.”
It depends. Tri + Deu = He fusion certainly does produce radioactive waste as a result of the fast neutrons released in the process. On the other hand p + B = 3 He fusion is anuetronic and does not create radioactive waste.
There is currently research into aneutronic fusion using IEC (intertial electronic confinement) instead of tokamak, of which Polywell fusion is the best known example.

shrnfr:
I reckon we can use about 60% of fossil fuels left in the ground if we have a hope in avoiding the most troublesome consequences of climate change!
At what point do “greens” (as you call “them”) become realists opposed to pessimists? Refecting what I understand to be the reality of a situation (http://stevehynd.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/uk-met-office-we-have-no-chance/) does not make a pessimist (in fact I am quite the opposite).
What I often wonder, about those who speak so clearly against climate change, is have you ever considered you are wrong, and if so what the reprecussions are. They are far more severe than if the “believers”are wrong!

Bring the TRUTH to light is all I have to say.I’m sick and tired of manufactured datd and reports to further political agendas and put everything on God’s good earth under the light of politicaly Correct.Let’s get back to truth and reality and attempt to see where we’re realy at,or is it to late for the inconvient truth.

steve4319 (08:22:16) :
“…What I often wonder, about those who speak so clearly against climate change, is have you ever considered you are wrong, and if so what the reprecussions are. They are far more severe than if the “believers”are wrong!?
————-
Reply:
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is time for this nonsense to stop!
I have been on WUWT for several months and I cannot recall anybody “speak so clearly against climate change” as Steve claims. Everybody here acknowledges the fact that Earth’s climate changes–Indeed, the only constancy about climate is that it DOES change. More accurately, you may call us “Climate Realists” and I charge that you are wrong; that as a “believer” you should consider the consequences of subverting the economy based on fear mongering and lies. Global warming policies as promulgated by the UN have already killed people through starvation and misappropriation of funds worldwide and what they plan is even worse. People who yell “Fire” in a crowded theater just to watch people scramble (or sell bandages at the exits to the injured so their consciences feel less guilt) are the lowest form of humanity.
As a geologist, I can tell you, as can others, that this past warming trend was minuscule compared to climatic states the earth has experienced over the geologic record.
This link helps put it in perspective:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
AGW propagandists (i.e. “believers”) are “climate scientists” that tell us this last warming, which, by the way, stopped ~10 years ago, is a world-stopper. As far as I can tell, being a “climate scientist” in the mold of Michael Mann and Phil Jones is nothing to be proud of considering how they have politicized and criminalized the science. Far more geologists and scientists in related fields, and yes, many who are climate scientists but haven’t sold their souls to the devil, have been studying aspects of Earth’s climate far longer and have found no basis for running around screaming “The Climate is CRASHING!”
No, we speak truth to corruption. You have taken the term “climate change” hostage and made it your own, castigating those that are sane/realists in their pursuit of the truth about the science, and this shall be your undoing.
Being an AGW “believer” really means believing in that which is not true and no good can come from it. And your line of action has been and will be far more costly in both lives and treasure than a realistic assessment and approach. Indeed, the tide is turning; what “believers” once considered to be the horrible result of greenhouse gases appears instead to be a significant benefit to the majority of earth’s inhabitants. But such a contrary conclusion shouldn’t be surprising when your original thesis is based on elitist factual inexactitudes.