@122. Eowyn:

By whose definition is “serious” achieved?

Peer review.

Hundreds of scientists never DID subscribe to AGW.

You specifically mentioned scientists who were cited in the IPCC report and now disavow this report. Now you are backtracking – unless you want to name names, and provide some citations.

This is laughable. The entire basis of the so-called science is itself flawed. Consider this (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4089)

I’m familiar with the folks at “climaterealists.com”. I hope you are aware that these are people with no interest in objective science. Try realclimate.org for analysis that doesn’t cherry pick the data, or play to the crowd.

Here is a pretty complete assessment of the latest IPCC data. You should find it informative if you can keep up with the science.

Even laymen like myself understand wonky science — and manipulation — when they see it. There is simply no way you can patch “minor flaws” in fabric that was rotten to begin with.

Wonky science and manipulation are one thing – claiming that decades of research and empirical observations can be tossed out over a single flawed data-set is just silly. To dismiss the entirety of global climate data so flippantly is irresponsible. Even your favorites at climaterealists.com admit that the evidence for global warming is not in doubt. They simply hold the extremely fatuous position that the most recent ten year period invalidates climate models – it doesn’t. It is well within the variability expected.

Wind/solar/geothermal? Every single existing source of these, taken together, couldn’t power New York City or Los Angeles for a single day, much less the rest of the country.

You are wrong. The total installed capacity of wind, solar and geothermal is expanding rapidly, and with aggressive energy policy, they can replace fossil fuels in a few decades. The current installed solar capacity in the US is more than enough to power LA for a day. Solar power capacity in the US is already 8,775 megawatts, and new solar generation capacity is expected to reach cost parity with fossil fuel sources in less than ten years. You are living in the past if you think sustainable energy can’t meet the needs of US cities.

I support exploring alternative sources vigorously — but not converting to them willy-nilly without making sure they can handle the load.

Nobody here is advocating the “willy-nilly” approach. Just seeking recognition that alternative energy sources are critical to American energy policy, and should be given priority, and that AGW is a reasonable theory that is well supported by the available evidence, and should be acted on accordingly. With proper implementation, solar, wind and geothermal power can provide a very large share of US power generation.

Thanks for being a good sport and supporting your POV with citations. However, I’d recommend a little higher caliber ammunition if you intend to take down the AGW juggernaut. The “CO2 skeptics” aren’t really well regarded, and could never hope to pass peer review.

Peace.

DS