[handlewanker]

Rick, at this moment in time, the Devil ain't driving hard enough, but when he/she gets into top gear, then the seperation of the wheat and chaff will happen, but till that time, nobody's gonna invest in technology that might not cut the muster, probably why 'ol Pickens is ducking for cover from the wind turbines.

I quite agree about the Third World living in mud abodes, but I dare say not from choice.

As the weather gets nasty, so all it takes is a bit of cheap energy and hey presto, everything's OK, but when that energy is of a low order, it'll be back to basics as before.

All that magic fuel come and almost gone in a hundred years, makes the billions spent on wars seem trivial.

BTW, henry Ford actually designed the Model T to run on Ethanol, (Wicky says so), so that man gets top marks for forseeing the need for sustainable energy, a hundred years ago or so, which is what the Brazilians are doing right now, but I can't see the Yanks or Europeans following that line, too much money and vested interest tied up in the black gold.

According to Wicky, Ethanol from cane sugar is far more economical and sustainable than corn, so there's hope yet, maybe I'll get to run my Merc on alcohol one day, not sure if it has to or can be really seriously modified to do so.
Ian

[handlewanker]

BTW, there was a program on the telly a while back about life in the Victorian times, and they lived the day to day events as they would have done just over 100 years ago, pretty grim especially the cobbled roads and off roads being mostly dirt.

The worst aspect was the unsanitary conditions as regards to water storage.

It only took one generation for the world to foget how life was then.

No TV, radios, Internet, anaesthetics, cars, phones, fridges, deep freezers, washing machines, central heating and airconditioning, electric light, aeroplanes and worst of all...........no computers or microwave ovens, that's awesomely primative, and I thought mud huts were bad.
Ian.

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello Again,
As you correctly note the good ol days (Victorian Era) were full of pestulance, poverty, filthy jobs and without most of what we consider to be the essentials, BUT the engineer was king, the accountants took the back seat and that allowed the modern world to be born. It has been said that if aliens flew past the earth a century ago they wouldn't have bothered to stop by, as the "lights were not on" indicating that no one but the pets were at home. Amazing what can happen in 100 years.
As for the Merc and Ethanol, What do you want to know, Alternate fuels have been my life's work for the past decade, the most important information when converting to Ethanol is the year, model and type of fueling system fitted, If you tell me these i'll gladly pass back the good/bad news. If it's got an internal combustion engine it'll run on Ethanol the only question is how much the mods will cost, the price range is $0-as much as you would like, My first conversion to Alcohol Fuel was an MG midget Mk1 in 1987, it cost about twenty dollars AU and was great fun.
I admit I'd gladly live in a mud hut providing it had hot and cold running water and 240V AC, preferrably three phase, that hardwood floor, the telly, microwave and all the other bits you mentioned. I suppose it'd be a house rather than a hut
There are a dozen different stories about the model T and Ethanol, but i can attest to having seen one running on a lethal brew of moonshine, I have seen the dedicated single fuel carburettor and one that had two settings, i was told at the time that the two setting version was able to do either Petrol/Gasoline or Ethanol, I am no model T expert, I am only saying what I was shown but the person telling the story may not have been an expert either. Most cars will quite easily run on Ethanol, the only real issues come when you are trying to get the timing and mixtures right and the resistance of some plastics and rubbers within the fuel system. There is often a need for a fuel pre heater but not in most of Brazil or Australia. This is one time when older cars are preferrable as these changes are easy, modern cars are tightly locked up with respect to these parameters, part of the reason i moved away from Australia are the draconian laws regarding vehicle modification as it makes it impossible to do any proper on road testing, In NSW you are not allowed to have any form of adjustability built into new car fuel or ignition systems, the systems need to be set at manufacture and then locked up tight, preventing the responsible engineer as much as the back yard tinkerer, It was just too hard so I moved the company to the UK where the laws were much more adaptable, however with the European Union cracking down it is getting harder, still not as bad as NSW though.
Best Regards
Rick

[handlewanker]

Laws are "meant" for our protection and guidance as to what are acceptable standards of existence in society.

Some time back the fire service was called out when a car blew up in the fast lane.

Apparently some yobbo had done his own LPG conversion on a Kingswood, that is he had a BBQ bottle in the boot with a length of plastic piping leading to the carby, no regulator or control.....awesome fire ball.
Ian.

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello,
Obviously laws and codes of practice are really important, but there needs to be a usable method of development, otherwise many responsible folk will never get a chance to discover the "next big thing" we should not forget that many, probably most, breakthroughs are the result of the "little man" rather than the big guys. When we prevent people from innovating we stop the future dead in it's tracks.
Another really important point is that despite the laws, the "yobbo" still managed to blow himself up! Because the yobbos don't listen to the laws, but the responsible folk generally do.
Best Regards
Rick

[Kevin Taylor]

Over here there are guy's building Hyodrogen fuel cells out of thermos bottels in the trunk "AKA" boot of the car and using the car's electricty to cause the cem reaction I can think of nothing finer than an escort exploding from a short in the hydrogen enviroment . The NG or History channel had a story that one cow was responsible for enough methain to heat a house I find this hard to belive but let's use what is all ready a wast or byproduct and for god's sake don't use a good fossel fuel like coal or natral gas to make ethonal and use what is thrown away anyway like garbage and food waste the rushen's make vodka from potato peals and cabage how about rendering Lawers and investment banker's into BioDiesel and don't forget polition's and the new's media. Etheonal takes at least 1-1/2 times to make the same power so you use more gallon's it's cooler runing but is a water magnet and eat's up the plastic and rubber part's also the resadue from combustion turn's to white rust witch is like sand when it work's lose inside an engine All in All gasoline work's prety good and why not look at pasanger miles per gallon not to mention comfort and safety the smart car isn't going to win against a Kenworth or Mack Truck Six in a Taho @15MPG is beter than Two in a Pris @30mpg not to mention luggage Enough supper is burning on the Gas Grill
Kevin

[fizzissist]

As soon as I find some good recipes for petroleum burgers or gasoline beer, I'll start putting perfectly good food in my gas tank. I must be missin' somethin' here...put food in your car when you can't eat oil? Btw, it takes at least 2/3 of an acre of corn ethanol to produce the 320 some-odd gallons of ethanol an acre of corn yields. Sure doesn't look like the sustainability ROI I'd be interested in...

Meanwhile, where the sun don't shine...
http://newmatilda.com/2009/09/11/where-sun-doesnt-shine

T. Boone saw the writing on the wall first?

[handlewanker]

No matter which way or when you look at the problem of renewable energy, when the crunch comes, even being able to strike a match will be a luxury.

I see on the CNN news the other night, a guy in California has just been granted a licence to run a pair of vertical bladed windmills, not sure of the term for that type, but this guy also has a set of photo voltaic panels on the roof and with the wind mills gets all the energy he needs.

Am I missing something here? If he can produce enough power for his needs, how come it isn't costing him more for the instalation than he'll get back in production, or is this the story put out by the oil/coal/nuclear mob hanging onto their assets till the lights go out?
Ian.

[dhellew2]

Its all about relativity. If the man lives a meager life style he won't need much energy... no microwave, TV, etc. Of course his payback on his investment will be much longer unless he lives so cheap that he can sell some to the grid.
On the other hand, the more he uses the quicker his payback, this is of course assuming that his cost of power is less than the cost of power from the grid.
Factor in his cost the maintenance, battery replacement, etc. and I'll bet his cost is at least 30% higher than from the grid, even in California average 11 cents per kWh cost.
Did the man mention that he probably cooks with gas, heats water with gas, and heats his house with gas?
The biggest residential demand load in much of California is air conditioning.
I spent 17 year working with the public on matters of energy efficiency and I can tell you that those dedicated to wind and solar evade the whole truth. They don't want anyone to know how much it actually costs. They just want to belong to the in crowd "the greenies".
The same can also be said for some on the other side of the fence. A woman wanted a hot tub. Her husband didn't because he thought it would be too expensive to maintain. They had a high-bill complaint... the wife begged me not to tell her husband how much energy the hot tub used... go figure...
YES, ANYONE CAN LIVE OFF THE GRID, BUT WHAT IS THE SACRAFICE AND WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST?

Dale

[timothybruce]

I have been researching the alternative energy situation from wind, solar and wood pellets everywhere the government here is not out to assist. I would not even be able to get a permit to set up a wind mill. Speaking of wind mills the estimated break even point is 20 to 25 years. Photo voltaic pannles are to expensive to opperate enough square footage to make them applicable again the government does not want to help. The last I have considered is Geothermal energy whick atleast is reasonable in cost and relatively low tech and does not require a permit of some sort. The government is willing to hand out Billions to GM to keep them going at over a million dollars per job saved, not to mention the fatcats at the top. I looked into making my own ethanol and no thanks the cost is prohibitive not to mention explosive.

No I do not believe that anyone at this time is really seriously going to give up the luxuries that we have worked so hard to achieve. I was salavating over a PCnCNC machine that works on single phase 210 volt so bring on the Khw/hr.

[dhellew2]

It does not matter what country you live in there are folks that believe what they want even when they don't have a clue. Historically government is about individual power, not what is in the best interests of mankind.

Sometimes it is simple as finding a project then milking it to death... example: global warming.

Life is about choices. Everyone makes choices and lives by those choices. The problem is that too many make choices without first asking questions and sometimes not listening when they do ask questions.

Case in point: a local business man needs heated floors for his product. He asked the local public utility what was recommend. With thousands of buildings in the area with electric floor heat and years of data to back it up he still chose to follow what he was familiar with, gas, however, not natural gas (not available here) as he was familiar with. Even when provided with the data he decided to use propane with a hydronic system.

He doesn't like his gas bills but thinks he made the right choice.

Fact is his energy cost is more than 420% more than clean renewable hydro power electric floor heat would have cost plus his added installation cost was 900% more.

Did he make the right choice? Financially NO. Environmentally NO. He thinks he made the right choice but then he has nothing to compare it to, blindly going forward with his choice. His choice is costing him several THOUSAND dollars extra each year but he will probably never ASK QUESTIONS and know the truth.

This is a true story, it is not a government project, yet it is typical of how governments often works. Blindly going forward without a clue.

[Charlm]

Why would you expect that our government would ever pay you money to put more efficient energy saving or worse... energy making items into your house?

Where does their money come from?

You spending money...

If you spend less -> they get less...

Now if you know a way to stay comfortable in your own home while spending less money - do it.

If you want to be greener and it will cost you more money (LIKELY) - do your home work. Find out what would best suit you and your abilities/ income. Then do that. You will be able to tell all your friends what a good guy you are and what you are doing for the environment.

Why is it that people are worried about climate change? Simple. The meaning of life (to pass on your DNA and keep it going long into the future). If the environment does not stay, how it has always been, then we need to do something about it.

Or do we?

From all the scientific evidence that I have seen there is no doubt about the fact of climate change among the scientific community. There is little doubt about where the change is coming from as well. Us burning Fossil fuels - that have taken millions of years to sequester CO2 from our environment and in the next 50 - 100 years most of that will now be back in our environment.

What will this mean?
More acid seas -> less fish to eat -> less food for us (we are now eating fish that 50 years ago would have been thrown back as trash.

Higher temperatures experienced all over the globe (scientists are suggesting that the average rise in temperature will be about 1 - 2 degrees - on average). How do you get an average? You add all the values up and then divide by the amount of values that you added. What was the hottest day that you have ever experienced? For me it was 52 degrees Celsius (125.6 F) what was the coldest? For me it was: - 12 C(10.4 F). I live in Australia and in much of the country there can be a range of 50 degrees C (112 F) throughout the year. For my average temperature to go up 2 degrees C; that could mean a rise of 6 or 7 degrees C (12 F) on any given day.

What will that do to your garden or your comfort at home? Gee wont you have to turn up your Air conditioner?

How do we fix these things?

Simple answer - have less children - burn less fossil fuels - turn off your appliances at the wall - travel shorter distances - walk to the shops - eat less junk food (if it is cooked in fat how can that be good for you?) - recycle.

Our governments are spending trillions of dollars in wars killing thousands of people each day and I guess they do know really know how to save the planet. because by getting rid of these people they can not have more children - cannot burn fossil fuels - have electrical appliances - travel - go to the shops - eat - use resources. (flame2)

I do not wish to offend - but I probably have. But just understand by wingeing about the fact that your government will not pay for your Solar powered wat-cha-mi-call-it does not mean that they should and that this type of complaint will not get you where we need to be if we wish to be comfortable and happy in our lives.

If you want something done right do it yourself.

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello all,
On at least one point I must say that I quite agree with Mr "Chalm" More people means more energy use and if that is "bad" then we need to keep a check on the number of people.

When China had a shot at it with the one child policy, the Western world went right off, Human rights, Blah, blah, blah. I have two children so I suppose I am partly to blame, I also intend to live for a long time so it's my fault again!

In the words of an old workmate, ten or so years back, " what we need is a proper world war and a good old fashioned plague, throughout history we have had these events to thin out the numbers, in the same way as culling kangaroos makes the herd stronger and more resilient to hard years".

I do not condone war, or killing anything, for pretty much any reason, but it would be good for energy consumption and sustainability, if we were to reduce the number of births to a maximum of one birth per person, or in other words two per couple, as this would at least maintain the numbers, reducing the numbers further to one child per couple, in theory reduces the worlds population to half it's size in one generation, can you imagine the number of empty houses in your street? and of the houses in use, only two bedrooms required! At the very least this would cause a real estate crash, that would make the current "credit crunch" look like a "bit of a dip in the market".

A two child policy would still result in a higher total number of breathing souls on the planet due to the ageing population, so if we choose against a one child per couple policy, I am going to suggest that we should enforce a policy of compulsary extreme sports for the over sixties:bs: as this would at least ensure that everone had the chance to go out with a bit of a bang maybe even a smile on our faces.

Mr "Chalm" please for the sake of the planet don't go to war with fried food, we need those heart failure statistics in order to keep the numbers down, and I do love my chips(french fries), Why eat fatty food? because it tastes good. thats why most people do.

Might I ask what scientific "evidence" have you seen lately? as I must say I don't believe that I have seen any real "evidence" either way, as we have discussed many times on this forum there are plenty of models and a vast number of reports, but i have not yet seen a proper good ol fashioned smoking gun, powder burns or even so much as an irrefutable fact, it seems that the scientific community agrees only that the discussion will be "on going" but the general public is convinced, this has often occured in the history of man mostly because the people need to know that someone or something is to blame, whether it was the sun god in 2000BC, witches in the1600s, the CIA or the mafia in Dallas in the 60s.

We are having an effect on our climate, there you go i have said it, but is our effect big enough to make any difference or are we a small part of the climate change that was always going to happen, I'm sorry, but with the mass media, creating the mass hysteria, with children coming home from school terrified by the threat of climate change, I don't think we will ever really know the truth.

Best Regards to all
Rick

[Charlm]

Hadn't realised that I had stumbled onto a climate change denier's thread...

Being interested in saving the world and all; made me shut my eyes to the overt purpose of this thread...

Knocking the evidence and ignoring the facts...

Educating active deniers is impossible - I know that...

But if you are just repeating what you have heard on the "current affair" program that you "so love" then please read on...

What do you think is true?:

THIS
- The world is warming
- CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that we produce are the cause of this warming
- less than 1 in a thousand scientists do not believe that Global warming is happening - and those that do have a hidden agenda

or

- the world is not warming - that glaciers in Canada are not melting at an alarming rate - that tropical fish are now living in places stated as being cold climates - animals are going extinct due to the warming of their environment - we are not experiencing more frequent storms - the "Conveyor belt" did not stop running a couple of years ago - the weather patterns "EL NINO and LA NINA" are all a figment of scientists' ambition

- CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not rising - the seas are not becoming more acid due to the CO2 dissolved in them - the oxygen levels in our atmosphere are not decreasing

- about half the scientists disagree with the cause of global warming

If you believe the second group I do not blame you. I do blame the "Mass Media" most of the people that write for the media about science are not qualified.

The purpose of the mass media is to get the owners more money (nothing wrong with that). The most common way to do this is make sensational headlines and print the most "out there" points of view.

When they are blamed for being biased they will then print the same number of articles that say the opposite. What a farce. This only makes people believe that the scientific community is 50 - 50 on the subject - instead of there being an extremely small minority of scientists that believe that global warming is not real and that the cause is is the CO2 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

OH YES EVIDENCE!!!!!

When it comes to the Evidence. Scientific Evidence. When you want to really know about climate change the most obvious place to go is to read scientific journal articles on the subject printed in what are World class science journals. NATURE for instance. SCIENCE another. NOT NEXUS MAGAZINE...

(If you want to know why... Google the meaning for PEER -REVIEWED. "Nexus is not one of these)

The consensus about climate change (warming) is extremely strong.

A 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey was published as an editorial in the journal SCIENCE. It found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.

Google it!

I know I have written heaps. I know that you may not have heard about many of the things mentioned in this post but remember if you don't understand it it doesn't make it wrong or you right.

Be smart - think for your self. Find out about it by doing reasonable research. Don't deny it just because it says something that you don't like. because this is why we are here today.

[Mariss Freimanis]

News Flash:

Chicken Little woke up this morning and stumbled across a thread where people don't believe the sky is falling. Finding these deniers caused Chicken Little great anxiety. He resorted to capitalizing random words, used a great deal of exclamation marks and placed a whole lot of periods at the ends of his sentence fragments. How could people not believe the sky is falling? He cited the consensus of notable chickens who say it is. That makes it a fact, no?

Mariss

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

You may like to read again, and see, that in fact I asked a question, this is the very beginning of any scientific debate, the asking of a question is not a sin, I find it interesting that the fundamentalists cannot bear the thought of a question, whether the subject be religion, politics or recently, climate change. Strangely the same questions have had me accused of being pro climate change without proof in the past, I just don't know where folk's like you come from some days.

I find it interesting that i did not mention any current affairs programs and yet apparently I have a favourite, one that I "so love" I'm sorry but you are out of order, I abhor current affairs programs due to their lack of balance, If your fact gathering is this accurate I question the rest of your post, I think the only reference I have ever made to any TV program was in relation to South park and their take on Al Gore, South Park is a satirical comedy program and I hope no one out there is taking current affairs advice away when watching, as that would be very dangerous.

For your information I am undecided as to the concept of "man made global warming catastrophe" Now be sure to read all of what i just put in quotes, I do not deny that man has an influence, I do not deny that there might be a catastrophe, but as an undecided individual i believe i have the right to ask whether the "man made part" has a significant influence over "the catastrophe part", and i am of the belief that anyone not asking that question is a bit thick, or at least has their judgement clouded by the hype, and regardless of the outcome that mankind is facing, panicking about it or attacking each other, will not save anyone, relax man.

I would never argue that there are more articles for or against Global warming catatrophe Blah Blah, but instead that whenever one reasonable man puts up a point there is often another reasonable man with a counter point, the number of articles one way or another depends mostly on the politics of the day, as this is where the funding tends to come from, but the facts upon which the reports are often based, are not neccesarily cut and dried as is often suggested. Many opposing factions of the global warming debate use the same data to prove opposing points. so how can any one person claim to have all the answers, I do not claim to have the answers but I will continue to ask the questions.

As has been mentioned many times during my short time on this forum, there is a lot of history on this forum and you might be well served to have a look at it before you get all twisted up and start firing bullet points.

The only point I make is that I want to see that smoking gun, but until it is shown to me I will continue with the decades of work that i have already put into the reduction of Energy use by the improvement of mechanical system efficiencies, what have you been doing to help Mr Charlmless? Do you write reports or read them?

I cannot sit by and hear that only one in a thousand scientists do not believe in global warming, as the statement in it's own right is completely misleading, the statement may be true, but it could still be misleading! as the statement refers only to the average global temperature, but to the common man the statement implies that 99.9% of scientists believe hook line and sinker in the global warming story as taught to kids in science class at school, and I'm sorry but the kind of thought processes that lead an individual down the path to a life in science just wouldn't let many accept the story without demonstrable evidence.

Look at the theory of evolution, at the time it was heresy, even today some reports say that 39% of the American public refute it on religious grounds, and still it can be easily demonstrated to prove that it is very real, Climate change in all it's intricasies is no where near as accepted or demonstrable and yet some claim 99.9% belief, and to go on that every one that doesn't agree with you is a liar trying to force another agenda, well, some might see that as a bit arrogant.

Further to this, I know from experience, that when you get a number scientists together, you have a hard time getting them to agree on what qualifies a person to be called a scientist, or whether the sky is blue or black at night time, let alone any matters of real science, scientists are very pedantic folk, this comes with the territory, It is pretty hard to get anything categorical out of us at the best of times as most are sick of being misquoted by the marketing department, political sciences department or the funding agency that is backing our work, I know I am!

Rick

[dynosor]

Hadn't realised that I had stumbled onto a climate change denier's thread...

Forget about scientists and politicians; what about a third category of people? Those that believe global warming is real, but that man doesn't have much to do with it and cannot do much to stop it. That a complete cessation of fossil fuel consumption won't make a significant difference to global temperature, ever, but that a forced reduction in energy availability will simply increase the cost of living, pricing many "out of the market".

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Hello Mr Dynosor,
You are not on your own there, I operate an engineering workshop that works in alternate fuels, we did a little survey amoung the employees and please note that these guys are some of the brightest i have been able to find around the Cambridge area in England, around sixty percent were of that exact opinion.

For everyone that likes to see a project that scores ten for effort but is just fatally flawed, have a look at BMW's Hydrogen effort at the following link http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17781/ Regardless of the fuel cell technology, sooner or later you have to try and keep the stuff in a tank, and that is where it all gets a bit hard, not to mention expensive. I have a friend that has been in "Fuel cell tech" since before it was fashionable and even he says don't try to put a fuel cell in a car as the tankage will cost more than anyone could justify.
Best Regards
Rick

[dhellew2]

Your post makes the assumption that those that question global warming are uninformed or misinformed. If you ask the same questions these folks asked, questions that it appears you have not asked, you too would perhaps question global warming.

I believe you will find the majority of them in agreement: Climate will change no matter what, it always has, it always will!

Your information is obsolete. Check it out, you will discover: The official name is now "CLIMATE CHANGE" no longer global warming. According to the same 'experts' you refer to are now saying global warming stopped in 1999, all 1.3° F of it. According to these same "experts' global cooling began in 2004, by February 2008 at 0.65° F lower.

I challenge you to always ask questions first then decide that the 'experts' are correct and never assume those that oppose your views are stupid uninformed folks. It is always possible they did more homework than you did.

I challenge answer the following questions:

Why is global warming referred to as a theory?
If global warming were true why haven’t the ocean levels risen the predicted 13+ feet?
Who are the experts?
Why do government scientists disagree with each other?
Why do non-government scientists disagree with the government scientists?
Who stands to benefit financially?
Which is correct? Global warming, Global cooling, Global nothing

Answers:
Global warming, global cooling, climate change are all theories. A THEORY IS NEVER A FACT
Oceans didn’t rise because where one area lost ice another gained.
Worldwide most scientist are government employees that without an agenda don’t have a job, a grant, etc. including PHD’s at universities.
Government scientists disagree with each other because after all, it is just a theory without substantial data.
Non government scientists look at the facts, government employees look to keep their pay often by never reaching a conclusion to their project.
Government scientists depend on their project for their pay. The longer the project the longer the pay continues. When and if the project ends, they must have a new project… such as changing from global warming theory to global cooling theory.
I say all three are correct, you can have all three climate changes somewhere on the earth at the same time and it is happening every day.

BOTTOM LINE, IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY. Global warming theory has made some people rich.

One of hundreds of available articles and document, in February 2008 global cooling made national news (fox):
Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

[amplexus]

I suggest this should be required reading if you are going to have an intelligent debate on global warming. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

Radiative forcing ΔF;
The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
The feedback multiplier ƒ.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

Also checkout solarcycle24.com or other sunspot site. NASA has a good one.
Anthropomorphic carbon does add to global warming but the driving force is solar output. Also we are about 7 degrees cooler than earth’s historic average temp. Life on earth survived and thrived despite fluctuations in climate. One thing is certain climate changes, it did so long before humans evolved and probably will long after we are gone. Personally I worry more about contaminating every landfill in the industrialized world with mercury from compact fluorescent bulbs.
Amplexus