Was Greenland ever Green?

If you look at the chart, produced by the New York academy of sciences you will see Solar Panels are one of the most inefficient energy sources around. 
In fact it's generally accepted that up till 2010 the energy cost of new cells each year was greater than the energy produced by cells from all prior years.....an energy drain, which is now positive because of the big installed base.
But even that modest claim is disputed because of questions  about what's included or left out of the energy cost. If its true to type it will be biased. The only persuasive case will be strong economic viability of cell producers without the subsidies.....don't hold your breath.
That's not what you  see because this industry, like ethanol, is heavily subsidized. so it may appear to you that it's all sweetness and light.....it isn't. But in fairness oil has its  societal costs as well. But it starts with a much better energy efficiency ratio and is vastly profitable....even at 50 dollars a barrel vs 120.

And if you have flown the Pacific once this year, you have added  almost a full automobile to global emissions.
Many well intentioned activities are not what they seem. 

 Wardaddy Dearest. You should work on your comprehension skills. I have nothing against solar energy to warm water. I have it against solar panels used to convert solar energy to ELECTRICITY. For that you also need BATTERIES. Both the manufacturing and the disposal of BATTERIES and SOLAR CELLS leads to problems to the environment much worse than CO2. And their effectiveness aren't that hot either. Same or worse than cellphone batteries. Lucky to get 2 years of proper use from the things. Trees can convert CO2 back to oxygen and trees and eventually coal again. The industrial fallout from manufacturing the other stuff are much worse. Acids and heavy metals (not the drugs and the music)As for leaded fuel. Read again old man. I never said it was good. My point was that when the problem was solved, some new problems surfaced. You can't solve one problem and stop worrying. Constant vigilance in ALL areas and Disciplines. Not just the ones the Green Peace fools point you to. The hard core environmentalists in general are the most bias lot you will ever meet. 
PS, for you non Africans. Africa is too poor and too corrupt to ever properly embrace clean energy and to me it seems the Asians don't give a shit, so good luck with that. "Clean Energy" means nothing if its not affordable to the masses.

 Hydro is the only real soft impact electricity supplier. Wind turbines/generators leads to some other problems as well. Nothing too serious, but its way too expensive to maintain.
Warded, either you are heavily subsidize, where ever you live is super cheap or you are bullshitting. Pays for itself in four years you say? That's the same story they try to pedal here and it's horse shit. 10 to 15 is more likely and by that time you start getting big bills for maintenance.
Hey, I'm not FOR coal E. I would welcome an alternative, but the tech is not there yet for solar(other than warming water). Wind is getting there, but still too expensive. Hydro is too localized. Nuclear is practical and clean up to the point where you have to get rid of what's left over...

 @mozart,

hey, you edited and changed your last post.............. it was so clear that you had no f*cking idea of what you were talking about...........as usual

  so, the 102%, eh?......... I was writting the answer,.......... almost finished.............. a pity,.......... I had enjoyed.....

  @ddraad,
you have some data quite wrong.

"Solar to electricity is more harmful than coal to e" .
" I have it against solar panels used to convert solar energy to ELECTRICITY. For that you also need BATTERIES."

That's simply not true. Precisely this is the only use of the photovoltaic cells, to convert the solar energy to electricity, you don't need batteries to do it, you just need them if you want to accumulate or keep the electricity.
Many solar panels (comercial, home or whatever) are just connected to the line. And that's it.

"Hydro is the only real soft impact electricity supplier."

And what about the The Three Gorges Dam, for example? millions of people displaced of their homes and lands, 1.000.0000 km2 flooded, whole ecosystems vanished , millions and millions of concrete (one of the most contaminants activities), etc, etc.

"Climate change is part of life on Earth.  We need to addapt with it or go the way of the dinosaur."
There have been other climate changes before, they were natural, but the one we are witnessing is human induced, is not natural, is not "part of life", as you said.
Being human induced means that has its own characteristic, like to be happening at an unprecedented speed.
But the most important thing is that our civilization have never experienced such a phenomena. And there's possibly no way to adapt to a climate change of more than 4-6 ºC. That would very probably mean the vanishing of our society as we know it and even the extinction of the human race.
The only possiblity of this to happen should make us change what we are doing. But we are running towards it.

Sorry to spoil your fun. But we have the facts nicely assembled now. The energy produced by solar panels has been cumulatively less than the energy it took to make them
This is partly because they are among the lowest energy yielders as shown by the chart.....partly because there was such rapid production growth that the installed base was quite small relative to new production. In 2010 the energy savings from the installed base was finally larger than the energy costs of new production. But obviously not larger than the energy costs of all production.

When these curves will cross is a little hard to  discern. But even that doesn't take into account the opportunity cost of not investing in other green forms. No doubt we would be much better off in energy terms if all this solar panel money had gone into wind.

But wind is not so popular, not so appealing as big shiny solar panel farms.....it's so 19th century. But it does work better than solar panels with way less negativity....except for those pesky aesthetics.

Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice?

    By Dahr Jamail

(......)
 I discovered a set of perfectly serious scientists -- not the majority of all climate scientists by any means, but thoughtful outliers -- who suggest that it isn’t just really, really bad; it’s catastrophic.  Some of them even think that, if the record ongoing releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thanks to the burning of fossil fuels, are aided and abetted by massive releases of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, life as we humans have known it might be at an end on this planet. They fear that we may be at -- and over -- a climate change precipice hair-raisingly quickly.

    Mind you, the more conservative climate science types, represented by the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), paint scenarios that are only modestly less hair-raising, but let’s spend a little time, as I’ve done, with what might be called scientists at the edge and hear just what they have to say.

    “We’ve Never Been Here as a Species”
    “We as a species have never experienced 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of evolutionary biology, natural resources, and ecology at the University of Arizona and a climate change expert of 25 years, told me. “We’ve never been on a planet with no Arctic ice, and we will hit the average of 400 ppm... within the next couple of years. At that time, we’ll also see the loss of Arctic ice in the summers… This planet has not experienced an ice-free Arctic for at least the last three million years.”

    For the uninitiated, in the simplest terms, here’s what an ice-free Arctic would mean when it comes to heating the planet: minus the reflective ice cover on Arctic waters, solar radiation would be absorbed, not reflected, by the Arctic Ocean.  That would heat those waters, and hence the planet, further. This effect has the potential to change global weather patterns, vary the flow of winds, and even someday possibly alter the position of the jet stream. Polar jet streams are fast flowing rivers of wind positioned high in the Earth’s atmosphere that push cold and warm air masses around, playing a critical role in determining the weather of our planet.

    McPherson, who maintains the blog Nature Bats Last, added, “We’ve never been here as a species and the implications are truly dire and profound for our species and the rest of the living planet.”

    While his perspective is more extreme than that of the mainstream scientific community, which sees true disaster many decades into our future, he’s far from the only scientist expressing such concerns. Professor Peter Wadhams, a leading Arctic expert at Cambridge University, has been measuring Arctic ice for 40 years, and his findings underscore McPherson’s fears.  “The fall-off in ice volume is so fast it is going to bring us to zero very quickly,” Wadhams told a reporter. According to current data, he estimates “with 95% confidence” that the Arctic will have completely ice-free summers by 2018.  (U.S. Navy researchers have predicted an ice-free Arctic even earlier -- by 2016.)

    British scientist John Nissen, chairman of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, suggests that if the summer sea ice loss passes “the point of no return,” and “catastrophic Arctic methane feedbacks” kick in, we’ll be in an “instant planetary emergency.”

    McPherson, Wadham, and Nissen represent just the tip of a melting iceberg of scientists who are now warning us about looming disaster, especially involving Arctic methane releases. In the atmosphere, methane is a greenhouse gas that, on a relatively short-term time scale, is far more destructive than carbon dioxide (CO2).  It is 23 times as powerful as CO2 per molecule on a 100-year timescale, 105 times more potent when it comes to heating the planet on a 20-year timescale -- and the Arctic permafrost, onshore and off, is packed with the stuff.  “The seabed,” says Wadham, “is offshore permafrost, but is now warming and melting. We are now seeing great plumes of methane bubbling up in the Siberian Sea… millions of square miles where methane cover is being released.”

    According to a study just published in Nature Geoscience, twice as much methane as previously thought is being released from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a two million square kilometer area off the coast of Northern Siberia. Its researchers found that at least 17 teragrams (one million tons) of methane are being released into the atmosphere each year, whereas a 2010 study had found only seven teragrams heading into the atmosphere.

    How serious is the potential global methane build-up? Not all scientists think it’s an immediate threat or even the major threat we face, but Ira Leifer, an atmospheric and marine scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the authors of the recent Arctic Methane study pointed out to me that “the Permian mass extinction that occurred 250 million years ago is related to methane and thought to be the key to what caused the extinction of most species on the planet.” In that extinction episode, it is estimated that 95% of all species were wiped out.

    Also known as “The Great Dying,” it was triggered by a massive lava flow in an area of Siberia that led to an increase in global temperatures of six degrees Celsius. That, in turn, caused the melting of frozen methane deposits under the seas.  Released into the atmosphere, it caused temperatures to skyrocket further. All of this occurred over a period of approximately 80,000 years.

    We are currently in the midst of what scientists consider the sixth mass extinction in planetary history, with between 150 and 200 species going extinct daily, a pace 1,000 times greater than the “natural” or “background” extinction rate. This event may already be comparable to, or even exceed, both the speed and intensity of the Permian mass extinction. The difference being that ours is human caused, isn’t going to take 80,000 years, has so far lasted just a few centuries, and is now gaining speed in a non-linear fashion.

    It is possible that, on top of the vast quantities of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels that continue to enter the atmosphere in record amounts yearly, an increased release of methane could signal the beginning of the sort of process that led to the Great Dying. Some scientists fear that the situation is already so serious and so many self-reinforcing feedback loops are already in play that we are in the process of causing our own extinction. Worse yet, some are convinced that it could happen far more quickly than generally believed possible -- even in the course of just the next few decades.

    The Sleeping Giant Stirs

    According to a NASA research report, “Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?”: “Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon -- an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable top soils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface.”

NASA scientists, along with others, are learning that the Arctic permafrost -- and its stored carbon -- may not be as permanently frosted as its name implies.  Research scientist Charles Miller of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the principal investigator of the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), a five-year NASA-led field campaign to study how climate change is affecting the Arctic's carbon cycle. He told NASA, "Permafrost soils are warming even faster than Arctic air temperatures -- as much as 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius) in just the past 30 years. As heat from Earth's surface penetrates into permafrost, it threatens to mobilize these organic carbon reservoirs and release them into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, upsetting the Arctic's carbon balance and greatly exacerbating global warming."

He fears the potential results should a full-scale permafrost melt take place. As he points out, “Changes in climate may trigger transformations that are simply not reversible within our lifetimes, potentially causing rapid changes in the Earth system that will require adaptations by people and ecosystems."

The recent NASA study highlights the discovery of active and growing methane vents up to 150 kilometers across. A scientist on a research ship in the area described this as a bubbling as far as the eye can see in which the seawater looks like a vast pool of seltzer. Between the summers of 2010 and 2011, in fact, scientists found that in the course of a year methane vents only 30 centimeters across had grown a kilometer wide, a 333,333% increase and an example of the non-linear rapidity with which parts of the planet are responding to climate disruption.

Miller revealed another alarming finding: "Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we've measured have been large, and we're seeing very different patterns from what models suggest," he said of some of CARVE’s earlier findings. "We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher than normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city."

Moving beneath the Arctic Ocean where methane hydrates -- often described as methane gas surrounded by ice -- exist, a March 2010 report in Science indicated that these cumulatively contain the equivalent of 1,000-10,000 gigatons of carbon. Compare this total to the 240-350 gigatons of carbon humanity has emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began.

A study published in the prestigious journal Nature this July suggested that a 50-gigaton “burp” of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea is “highly possible at anytime.” That would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide.

Even the relatively staid IPCC has warned of such a scenario: "The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out. Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans."

In the last two centuries, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has increased from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7 parts per million. The introduction of methane in such quantities into the atmosphere may, some climate scientists fear, make increases in the global temperature of four to six degrees Celsius inevitable.

The ability of the human psyche to take in and grasp such information is being tested. And while that is happening, yet more data continues to pour in -- and the news is not good.
(....)
Here’s the question: Could some version of extinction or near-extinction overcome humanity, thanks to climate change -- and possibly incredibly fast? Similar things have happened in the past. Fifty-five million years ago, a five degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures seems to have occurred in just 13 years, according to a study published in the October 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A report in the August 2013 issue of Science revealed that in the near-term Earth’s climate will change 10 times faster than at any other moment in the last 65 million years.

“The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet,” climate scientist James Hansen has said. “There are potential irreversible effects of melting the Arctic sea ice. If it begins to allow the Arctic Ocean to warm up, and warm the ocean floor, then we’ll begin to release methane hydrates. And if we let that happen, that is a potential tipping point that we don’t want to happen. If we burn all the fossil fuels then we certainly will cause the methane hydrates, eventually, to come out and cause several degrees more warming, and it’s not clear that civilization could survive that extreme climate change.”

Yet, long before humanity has burned all fossil fuel reserves on the planet, massive amounts of methane will be released. While the human body is potentially capable of handling a six to nine degree Celsius rise in the planetary temperature, the crops and habitat we use for food production are not.  As McPherson put it, “If we see a 3.5 to 4C baseline increase, I see no way to have habitat. We are at .85C above baseline and we’ve already triggered all these self-reinforcing feedback loops.”

He adds: “All the evidence points to a locked-in 3.5 to 5 degree C global temperature rise above the 1850 ‘norm’ by mid-century, possibly much sooner. This guarantees a positive feedback, already underway, leading to 4.5 to 6 or more degrees above ‘norm’ and that is a level lethal to life. This is partly due to the fact that humans have to eat and plants can’t adapt fast enough to make that possible for the seven to nine billion of us -- so we’ll die.”

If you think McPherson’s comment about lack of adaptability goes over the edge, consider that the rate of evolution trails the rate of climate change by a factor of 10,000, according to a paper in the August 2013 issue of Ecology Letters. Furthermore, David Wasdel, director of the Apollo-Gaia Project and an expert on multiple feedback dynamics, says, “We are experiencing change 200 to 300 times faster than any of the previous major extinction events.”

Wasdel cites with particular alarm scientific reports showing that the oceans have already lost 40% of their phytoplankton, the base of the global oceanic food chain, because of climate-change-induced acidification and atmospheric temperature variations. (According to the Center for Ocean Solutions: “The oceans have absorbed almost one-half of human-released CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Although this has moderated the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, it is chemically altering marine ecosystems 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in at least the last 650,000 years.”)

“This is already a mass extinction event,” Wasdel adds. “The question is, how far is it going to go? How serious does it become? If we are not able to stop the rate of increase of temperature itself, and get that back under control, then a high temperature event, perhaps another 5-6 degrees [C], would obliterate at least 60% to 80% of the populations and species of life on Earth.”
(...)
History shows us that when food supplies collapse, wars begin, while famine and disease spread.  All of these things, scientists now fear, could happen on an unprecedented scale, especially given the interconnected nature of the global economy.
(...)
The signs of a worsening climate crisis are all around us, whether we allow ourselves to see them or not. Certainly, the scientific community gets it. As do countless communities across the globe where the effects of climate change are already being experienced in striking ways and local preparations for climatic disasters, including increasingly powerful floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, and storms are underway.

 This is the worst case scenario but the only possibility of this to happen should make us change......... but it's not the case

Your author is worried about riots when he thinks the  climate is going to change....we would have total collapse today if we cut oil usage by 5 per cent.

But try reading this....it's written by global warming believers, and even they admit, the models are all wrong. They confidently produce some reasons which don't blow up the theory,but they have no proof.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being

 By the way your author Dahr Jamail is a journalist from Texas A&M ....not exactly a school that attracts the cream of the crop.

  raving again, mozart?

"The energy produced by solar panels has been [removed]ulatively less than the energy it took to make them".

Where did you read such a lie?

The solar panels have an EROI according to the diferent authors:

-Cleveland et al. :  from 1,7 to 10
-Elliot:                  from 3 to 9
-Hore-Lacy:          from 4 to 9

(authors use to give margins better than a concete numbers because it's a very new item of study unlike your graph taken from wikipedia)
This means that a solar panel gives btwin 170% and 1000% or 300-900% or 400-900% of the E used in its production. (Not the 102% like you was saying).

I fear you have missed the point. Read it again. 

 and snobing also?

" is a journalist from Texas A&M ....not exactly a school that attracts the cream of the crop."

if this is all what comes to your mind after reading this article,...........

 But this might help. According to this Popular Science article we only break even on the energy put into solar panel production by 2020, but as I've seen no independent corroboration I havent quoted it. An apology would the decent thing to do

Mobile solar panels at the Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada

Nellis AFB

Solar panels make energy, but they take energy to make, too. And, until about 2010 or so, the solar panel industry used more electricity than it produced, according to a new analysis. Now, the industry is set to "pay back" the energy it used by 2020.

 An apology? for what?

all that you brought was a tricky essay that means nothing.
You changed an useless statement:
"until about 2010 or so, the solar panel industry used more electricity than it produced, according to a new [removed]ysis. Now, the industry is set to "pay back" the energy it used by 2020."
but which is, at least clear. It's completely useless because it's common sense that, for example, a panel built last year has consumed more E than produced because it's been producing just 1 of its 20-25 years of life. What a discovery. This is perogrullo and completely useless.

but then you changed it to:
"The energy produced by solar panels has been [removed]ulatively less than the energy it took to make them"

which is as useless as the original but tricky since one can understand other things.

I don't have time for this kind of stupid games

Well I wasn't holding my breath. But you still haven't grasped the issue. Any investment is subject to discounting....energy in future is less valuable than energy today. So the date when energy into panels "kumulatively" is surpassed by energy produced "kumulatively" is very significant. Popular Science estimates that as 2020. But if we had used other energy systems we would have been positive already.

Do you get it?

 Dbdraad ,all I see is someone pining for the good old days of lead being pumped into the environment .Here in Australia solar and alternative energy is now cheaper compared to other newstart energy production.Maybe you should take a look at legislation for people like myself in Oz who get a guaranteed price on any electricity fed into the grid [feed in tarriff is 9c ak for me] before calling someone a liar ya tool.And people who for some strange reason think that pumping garbage into the air from coal is better than solar ? How ? utter nonsense cherrypicked to prove some ridiculous point .Coal over time requires more coal to keep making energy ,unless the sun packs it in and buggers off it remains free and clean after the carbon footprint is paid off .And in my case I dont have battery back up its fed back into the grid and I get paid for excess .As for leaded fuel unless you think unleaded is somehow worse you have no point to make.Asians ? You mean like China who have now decided that clean energy is a priority just for the pollution alone ? Those Asians who are looking to sign off on newcarbon reduction targets ? Are they Asian enough ?

Abasq. How are u gonna use solar at night (when most people are home) if you store the energy.
Wardad. I can't help it that you can't seem to comprehend. I never said leaded fuel was good or preferable. Where the bloody hell you read that, only you will know.

 @mozart,

Firstly, for the next time have the decency to quote when you take something from a scientific article and include the link.
To put it in your words hiding the signicance for later appear with the article demanding apologizes is at least filthy and befouling.

Secondly, I grasp "the issue" since the beggining. I wasn't arguing about what you call "the issue" (and I would call it your raving), I was just underlying one of your sentences that I thought was wrong, as it's your habit.
Another example:
"energy in future is less valuable than energy today"
it shows so clearly that you have no f*cking idea of what you are talking about.

And I wasn't arguing about your issue because it's totally worthless, it has no sense at all. Unless you show equivalent and comparable data about other E sources (e.g., when do the all the wind generators installed untill now "pay back" the energy used in its building) your statement (" if we had used other energy systems we would have been positive already") is produced out of thin air.
Even if you could show these data (what you won't) your statement is completely useless. To begin with the profit or the E "pay back" is not the only parametre to take into account (the CO2 emission of the souce, the possibilty of having other source or not,.... are also importants). And the fact that there is another source that pay back sooner (if this would be the case) doesn't mean that this source should be the only one to develope.
The only requirement is to effectively give this "pay back" or, in other words, have a positive EROI, not to have the highest EROI as you imply. As your graph shows the solar panels have an EROI of 2, which means that for each unit of E needed for its building and mantainance they give 2 units.

 Another example of how wrong you are:

"we would have total collapse today if we cut oil usage by 5 per cent."

Each time there's been an economical crisis (1973, 1980's, 2007-2008) there's been a cut oil usage bigger than 5 per cent and no total collapse have occurred.
The total collapse will come if we don't begin a gradual reduction of our oil consumption. We are now on the top of the peak oil  and soon later the peak gas, the carbon peak and the "peak everything" will come. Liked or not we are in a finite world and there are not more worlds to exploit.
We are now in the boundaries  of what we can take from it (peak oil and "peak everything") and  what we can throw to it (climate change and other pollution issues).

Very soon we will begin the decline in the oil curve production. It doesn't mean that we will have suddenly no more oil but we will have less and less (prices higher and higher) and if we don't begin to react reducing our consumption a total collapse could occur

you continue raving huge way............ all you say has no sense at all ........... this is the last comment about the subject I make.

here's your truth:

"The peak oil argument has been modified by fracking".  FALSE

what the fracking has made is just delay the peak oil. The whole peak-oil theory remains intact since it was published by Hubert King in the 60'.

"1) We dont have a model that is accurately predicting climate. All models are over predicting warming". FALSE

The models and the diferent scenarios posed by the IPCC are under predicting warming and the prove is that each time the IPCC or any other organism publish a new study they have to apòlogize for the under predicting and their predictions are always worst that those made years before. Here you have a timeline of the diferent predictions made:
* Late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announces that the planet in the most probable scenario will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100.
* Late 2008: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research predicts a 2C increase by 2100.
* Mid-2009: The U.N. Environment Programme predicts a 3.5C increase by 2100. Such an increase would remove habitat for human beings on this planet, as nearly all the plankton in the oceans would be destroyed, and associated temperature swings would kill off many land plants. Humans have never lived on a planet at 3.5C above baseline.
* October 2009: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060.
* November 2009: The Global Carbon Project, which monitors the global carbon cycle, and the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a climate science report, predict 6C and 7C temperature increases, respectively, by 2100.
* December 2010: The U.N. Environment Programme predicts up to a 5C increase by 2050.
* 2012: The conservative International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for that year states that we are on track to reach a 2C increase by 2017.
* November 2013: The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

"2) We  haven't made a fair assessment of whether modest climate change has any positives....the recent Amazon forest  increases being a good example." FALSE
are you crazy or what? do you think that we have the ability to stop the climate change whenever and however we want to have some positives? c'mon........
The Amazona forest has never increased in the last century. What has happened is that in the last 10 years or so the deforestation speed has decrease. 10 years ago the deforestation rate was around 20.000 km2/year and now is around 6.500 km2/year.
Something very very diferent.

"3) We don't have a new viable technology to replace oil, coal or nuclear." FALSE again.
We have the tecnology. The renewable sources are there. What they are not capable of is of replacing the whole E consumption, hence we need to use them and at the same time reduce our E consumption.

The rest of the points are clueless statements in the same way.
And the only half truth and political agendas involved are those of the denniers and the current politicians who are doing nothing while we are going directly to the catastrophe.
I don't give a sh¡t about the f*cking dietary and the fat.

You can't reason with these guys Blikkies. I say the models are over predicting results....which they are, significantly. The point goes whoosh over Basque's head and he shows me the Warm er's are increasing their temp predictions for the far, unseeable future. Actual results vs fantasy results.

 Again I say it entirely like the great hoax of the 20th century evolution. Even today dispite all the scientific evidence we see this brain washing of children re evolution and the atheists fighting tooth and nail to prevent a considerstion of the creationist view point which science now supports.Overstating their case - you bet  - this quote by ab ass was hilarious - note ab ass getting all uptight in the debate - angry atheist syndrome! While his perspective is more extreme than that of the mainstream scientific community, which sees true disaster many decades into our future, he’s far from the only scientist expressing such concerns . Professor Peter Wadhams, a leading Arctic expert at Cambridge University, has been measuring Arctic ice for 40 years, and his findings underscore McPherson’s fears.  “The fall-off in ice volume is so fast it is going to bring us to zero very quickly,” Wadhams told a reporter. According to current data, he estimates “with 95% confidence” that the Arctic will have completely ice-free summers by 2018.  (U.S. Navy researchers have predicted an ice-free Arctic even earlier -- by 2016.)

Bwahahahahahahhahahaha this has to be worse than poor Al Gored and the hocky stick syndrome!
As I said the real question is why all this propoganda.