WK:

Quote:

There is now equally wide consensus that human beings need to act now to prevent irreversible climate change.

That’s rubbish.

Quote:

For example, a low carbon economy will mean less pollution. A low carbon diet (especially eating less meat) and more exercise will mean less cancer, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Now they are getting muddled. Low carbon? Low carbon in or low carbon out?
Yes, low OIL in is a good thing. There is no conclusive evidence that low carbon out is important.
The use of resources with consideration to consumption patterns and total resources available, and the cost of getting them.

Quote:

“If we take climate change seriously, it will require major changes to the way we live, reducing the gap between carbon rich and carbon poor within and between countries,” said Jay and Marmot.

should be:

Quote:

“If we take PEAK OIL seriously, it will require major changes to the way we live, reducing the gap between carbon rich and carbon poor within and between countries,” said Jay and Marmot.

Do you see the important difference in the way you can look at this.
The funny thing is that many people who do not accept AGW as a significant effect actually have very similar views to those who do.
There is just this subtle difference.
The solutions are similar, but also subtly different.

Andy H,
I just look at the data. I have not been convinced that man has caused any significant effect on global climate temperatures. Considering the statements made by the IPCC which have been proven to be based on errors, my faith in the so called IPCC consensus is poor.

As to peak oil, I think the data and logic is far more clear and convincing.
And unlike AGW, which is currently suffering from temperatures going down, oil prices are still high even in this economic mess. That surely is a pretty clear signal that something is happening.

Yes, maybe showing polar bears on melting summer ice can get the “ignorant masses” to believe more easily. Maybe not when they look at the cost of filling up.