http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... king-leaks

The "science" is slowly eroding by the looks of it.

It's always has been at the mercies of what ever the popular theory is. Overturning a prevalent theory is hard work.

What ever anyones personal opinion of climate change we should always err on the side of caution. Longer term we need to make use of renewable sources of energy because of peak oil. I do feel that coercing the scientists into supporting the process is very bad.

At what level should we ere on and who decides?

Well the thing is amnesia is that governments and markets will react to rising oil and prices by shifting to coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, tidal and solar. Thing is fusion may be here in 30 to 50 years time. Oil and gas will have to get a hell of a lot more expensive to make usage of renewables seem remotely feesable.

In economics the long term is a period of time in which there are no fixed variables in that market in the energy market 30-50 years is easily the long term, therefore I would say that the market is able to respond technologially to meet future demand.


The phase I think suits this "coersion" is institutionalised climate alarmism.

And it is not climate change it is Anthropogenic global warming, climate change phrase tends to appear since there hasn't been warming for 11 years or when there is increasing cold weather like the winter of 2008-09 and 09-10 (though not a trend this tends not to matter when it comes to blaming a catastrophe in warming propoganda on AGW.) So in the northen hemisphere in january and february it has been climate change and in australia it is global warming.

But like most institutionalised beliefs it tends to self replicate and self defend. The problem with this theorum is that people who suport it feel like they are saving the world.Try getting rid of any belief like that, its like racism 2.0 as far as being a sticky idea. Look at new scientist for a "journal" of science for the past 5 years.

Governments and markets do react to markets, but one thing that has been demonstrated is that markets can be manipulated. An example of this was the price surge and subsequent collapse a couple of years ago. This had profound impacts in many ways. Governments can and should reduce the volatility of these swings by having a carbon tax. This could make renewables worth installing. The nuclear industry could also pay a sum up to this carbon tax level to provide a sinking fund for decommissioning, which inevitably falls on the tax payer. The funds raised by this tax should be used to provide grants for home and business insulation. Insulation raises the efficiency of energy use and this is the most effective use of any funds. With a stable minimum price for energy the economics of renewables and even nuclear become much more effective.

What I hate is with all of the cloak-and-dagger stuff, "climate change" is fast appearing as the eugenics of the '10s.