Almost Canadian

I believe I made that point above.

As I said above, I take no position on this at all. As for the suggestion that the judicial system is always correct, I don't believe I have ever said that, but I do accept that I say that those that heard the evidence are better placed to judge it than those that have read an opinion online.

So what are the alternatives? On the assumption that non fossil fuels are not able to replace the energy produced by burning fossil fuels, where do we go from here?

I guess time will tell which side is correct.

Thanks for the debate. It helped pass a slow day at work.

Almost Canadian

And therein lies the problem for the non expert. I have no idea how to interpret the, no doubt, excellent content of such papers.

Novocastrian

Which is why the IPCC take such great efforts to publish a strictly peer reviewed Summary for Policy Makers written in language which is relatively easy to understand for non-specialists.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

I wonder if you've ever bothered to read it before "absenting" the whole body of work?

jimf

In the same way that 97% of bishops profess to believe in God.

jimf

Maybe things aren't so bad.............

http://www.economist.com/node/21540224

MikeUK

You asked earlier about a good source of information on this topic, I would suggest reading "New Scientist" its well written and not hard to understand and peer reviewed.

Its on-line and in a bi-weekly magazine, and it almost allways has something on climate change.