Apart from the odd scare story on the BBC, there doesn't seem to be much going on in the world of AGW at the moment. I always get worried by a lull, on the Beeb it used to mean they were gathering their forces for a week long orgy of alarm. Most of the BH and WUWT posts in recent weeks have been of the "he said she said" category - even Steve McI's last post (3 weeks ago!) was a "he said she said" post about Lew.

I don't really count Balcombe as climate-related - it's the usual rent-a-rabble who would come out to the building of a wendy-house of they thought they could avoid showering and live in a tree for a week. I don't perceive the public see it as climate-related either - it's more the usual anti-capitalism occupy drivel, and people are bored of that, despite the best efforts of the Guardian/BBC axis of evil to whip it up. Of course people don't like industrial mining near their homes. They don't like windmills either. But they do like electricity. Once educated about the comparative on-going disruption of a fraccing operation and say, oh I don't know, a wind farm, I'm sure they'd choose one rather than the other.

So what's the next big thing going to be? IPCC AR5 will be absolutely nothing, is my prediction. We've already seen it, and it's more of the same. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, after all.

As I said, nervous. The alarmists are on the back foot. We are winning - compare now with the conversations we were having here 2 or 3 years ago. The change has been slow, but it has been going in our direction. But cornered rats are dangerous, and I'm nervous. They are furiously working on something, I feel it in my bones. If I can add a late prediction to my 2013 predictions list is that there will be one more coordinated full-scale assault by the usual suspects before the year-end.

It will be pointless, of course. Nature wins.

There are some moves to bring both sides together in this great debate.
A letter to the Daily Telegraph suggests putting a windmill onto each fracking well-head.

Do I have to be the voice of reason here? Gently rotating windmills powered by excess devil farts could offer perfect roosting and nesting habitats for all the rock doves that currently infest London. My great uncle already has a patent leather design with just two moving parts and I helped with all the floating point calcs. We are only limited by our imaginations, man.

Are we now in a Western? - "I don't like it, Sarge. It's too quiet..."

Look out for the arrows!

Well, if you can't see Chuck Norris, he's behind you.

stewgreen: so, they are admitting that renewable energy is not to be trusted, no matter how "small" the requirement. Curious that they are so for the idea...

Most of us who follow BH are sceptical, don't know, or are luke warmers.

If there is a persuasive scientific argument, we are prepared to believe that water vapour feedback is negative and inversely proportional to atmospheric temperature.

We would be prepared to believe that when the atmosphere heats up in the tropics, cloud formation kicks in to block solar radiance through albedo.

We may even be prepared to believe, given some results, that GHG warming is countered by convection followed by a greater proportion of DLWR going to space resulting in heat loss.

Some of us may even be capable of (sacrilege!) believing that the GHG theory is flawed when applied to an open system like our atmosphere.

In other words, we have open minds and don't hold any aspect of climate science as indisputable truth. We are happy to consider the unthinkable if new evidence points that way.

Increasingly, I am becoming convinced that climate scientists do not have the ability to have an open mind in this way. I do not intend to belittle them by that statement, I think they have some beliefs that were ingrained when they were learning the basics. Today, some of these beliefs are "a given" and not up for negotiation or a change of mind.

The rest of us are flexible and just seek the truth. Climate scientists seem to either stick bullishly to their models or they agonise over why the models don't work, - but always, it appears, within a much more limited belief framework.

So what did they learn as gospel when they were fresh faced and innocent , which today should be thrown under a bus?

Don't ask me, I didn't train as a climate scientist.

Stewgreen, I'd guess they are talking about the energy used for the studio electronics in the narrowest possible sense, conveniently forgetting about the distribution and transmission network.

Or it could be that the technical ignorance so coveted and celebrated by media luvvies means that they haven't a clue about the difference between amps and kiloamps.

If it's power, it's not amps, it's watts (or more likely kilowatts)...

"Carbon dioxide traps heat". Are you bothered by the concept? It's not new.

Aug 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM | Martin A
"So what did they learn as gospel...?"

"Carbon dioxide traps heat"

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:10 PM | 1001
"Carbon dioxide traps heat". Are you bothered by the concept?
It's not new.

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM | Mike Jackson
Not new, 1001; just wrong. We've moved beyond that hyper-
simplistic explanation and there are plenty of threads on this
site and elsewhere that explain why.

You have moved beyond basic physics - what does that mean? You and Martin-A don't think CO2 traps heat in the way that has been understood for a century? Or what? I don't understand whether you think the 'greenhouse' action of CO2 should not be taught as a fact or just that you think it doesn't hold the
answer to life the universe and everything (which nobody would dispute).