Our famous Railway Engineer gets about a bit. He's driven his glacial locomotive over to Rome:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/

see the pdf link on that page to "Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene "

Stuck-record

Another good reason to lift the absurd proscription on the stuff then. Perhaps then growers would simply use the sun instead of hiding in cellars.

A psychotherapist and climate activist has had second thoughts about pushing such activism on to children: http://rorandall.org/2011/03/23/should-we-be-working-with-children-about-climate-change/

She argues that it might cause them anxiety, that it might be counterproductive for the cause, and that people are just picking on them for their own selfish ends.

I have added some comments here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/04/not-just-another-brick-in-wall-hey.html

Oh Dear.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/13/marijuana_thermageddon/

"Evan Mills, who works at Lawrence Livermore Labs but conducted the study in his own time, estimates that indoor pot growing accounts for 1 per cent of energy usage in the United States, with each spliff representing two pounds of CO2 emission. Heavy."

Barry

Some (or all?) of the Paul Dennis debate is available here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fgPrhzp7ht4J:slsingh.posterous.com/41313406+paul+dennis+slsingh&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

As to why he turned the comments off, there are relevant comments at the end of the following thread

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/4/3/singhs-response-to-nelson.html

Look like Simon Singh has turned comments OFF on his blog...

It appears to wipe away the interesting Paul Dennis and Andrew Montford had, in the comments of this post..

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/29/paul-dennis-on-the-trick.html

http://slsingh.posterous.com/41313406

I wonder why Simon Singh has done this?

Frosty

I wonder what energy source the IMF thinks will power "growth" when oil starts this terminal decline?

Coal is the mainstay of baseload generation, not oil, so the "growth" you refer to will be sustained by baseload generation from coal-fired plant, plus (presumably) nuclear.

I'm not arguing that a creeping reduction in supply for oil is a good thing, only that it is not by any means the 'motor of growth' that coal is.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/04/11/imf-world-growth-forecast.html

"In fact, the IMF now predicts that crude oil supplies will drop by one per cent annually, pushing up oil prices even further.

But the organization said the changes are unlikely to damage the global economic recovery.

"Our simulation analysis shows that gradual and moderate increases in oil scarcity may only be a minor constraint on global growth in the medium to long term,” the IMF said in its oil report."

I wonder what energy source the IMF thinks will power "growth" when oil starts this terminal decline?

Some bio-fuels increase greenhouse gases.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13056862

It's what we've said for a long time, just like for wind turbines. The law of unintended consequences in action again.

A great summary of the green scaremongering following Fukushima (Beeb and Greenpeace) and the realities of the safety of nuclear power are summarised at:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/fukushima_ffs/