Hopefully, that will change with the new tech coming on stream (thorium as well as small nuclear power plants).

Well, it won't happen any time soon.

Under the carbon pricing scheme, oil and gas prices will be forced higher by government diktat in order to make wind more price competitive.

No. It is same to say that father will get knife and cut his stomach out because he wants to slightly reduce his fat level.

Did I actually read that we should listen to scientists whom are unencumbered? Perhaps there is a world somewhere called Utopia where scientist and researchers work unencumbered, here in the real world, good luck with that.

Obama's policies are not modest. The USA has already wasted half a billion on subsidies to Solyndra.

Which is nothing, compared to years of oil, gas and nuclear power subsidies, which are in the tens of trillions. If we paid the true cost of these fuels, alternative technologies would be far more appealing and competitive. And if there was a real concern for "fuel poverty", it would be easy enough to reduce the burden of higher energy costs on the poor. But the only truly aggressive attempt to help the poor pay their fuel bills in the U.S. is thanks to Venezuela, which offers subsidies to poor Americans. Indeed, the global warming deniers in the U.S. congress have moved to cut fuel subsidies to the poor.

The Koch Brothers spend hundreds of millions every election cycle -- Tom Steyer is a drop in the bucket.

I can't speak to the UK situation, but we hear similar apocalyptic claims made in the U.S. -- huge bills, blackouts, massive unemployment, all to follow. But business interests always make these claims. Any infringement on their blessed freedom to pollute and pursue profit is the end of civilization as we know it. Oil companies insisted for years that getting the lead out of gasoline would end life in America as we know it. How many times are we expected to fall for this song and dance? Talk about hysteria.....

Folks here might also ask themselves how, if the consensus is really political, not scientific, who exactly is perpetrating the hoax and who benefits from it?

Conspiracy paranoia seems more the domain of a small group of climate alarmists. Just do a google search of 'Koch climate denial'. Or read Michael Mann tweets.

Obama's policies are not modest. The USA has already wasted half a billion on subsidies to Solyndra. It looks set to triple that with Ivanpah. More seriously, the extra cost of fuel seriously hurts those living on the margin whose disposable income and purchasing power have already been rocked by the Great Financial Crash.

In the UK, the situation is even worse. The Climate Change Act of 2008 will add huge amounts to our bills, enrich a handful of wealthy landowners like the PM's father-in-law, do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, do nothing to stimulate genuine innovation in the energy market, and lead to power blackouts.

I think anyone who describes these changes as moderate is not in touch with those many people living in fuel poverty. I think it's a massive vote-loser - Tom Steyer's $65m (an amount way more than the Kochs donated to Heartland) funding climate activism for the mid-terms probably did the democrats more harm than good.

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

Which companies caused global warming? A new paper shows which companies extracted the carbon-based fuels that have caused climate change. (Interactive chart)

http://static.guim.co.uk/interactivestore/2013/11/20/1384965790607/557603/index.html

@onion, I'm not familiar with Lewadosky, but I have a problem when psychologists start telling us what the think about climate change or similarly, when oil company shills start telling us what to think. Can't we just go with mainstream scientists that work, unencumbered, in the field of climatology? Is that really too much to ask? Get rid of the Lewandowsys, the Kochs, the exxons, we might actually get somewhere.

It'd be easier if you'd just read the peer reviewed literature. Science is not having the discussion you guys think they're having. Is the consensus 100%? of course not, it never is, but the numbers are getting scary and absurd for the few deniers out there trying to push up hill. It's equally easy to follow the money. Oil companies and the hired think tanks perpetrate a uniform and tight message. Obfuscate, confuse, and distract. That's what they do. This isn't rocket science, it's not even climate science. Just follow the money. Lots of old saws popping up, predictably, yes, 30 years ago, LIFE magazine and other media outlets stirred up public interest in global cooling. I think it even became the story for a few bad TV movies. It was a media driven story without backing in any meaningful way from science ....not the way current theories enjoy widespread and deep support from NASA, JPL, IPCC, and 20 out of 20 National Science academies. Interesting eyenorth suggests scientists who predicted the warming pause are now being vilified. I've read several articles on that topic and haven't noticed any pitchforks and torches. Further, there isn't much out there regarding ANYONE predicting a climate pause, there are scientists who observed a pause and then reported it as an observation. Not quite the same thing.

It is complete bullshit that the science is settled on the driving factors in climatic changes. The consensus is political

Here we go again. The "science is settled" to the degree there's a consensus. And there absolutely is a consensus. The global warming trend is no more debated among competent researchers in the field than are claims for creationism. The literature doesn't even bother to dismiss your views; they're not viewed as serious.

Of course, that consensus may be wrong, but it's bullshit to claim that a consensus doesn't exist or that there's not a strong and persuasive basis for one -- unless, again, the vast majority of climate researchers are deemed to be stooges and hacks or all the data which points to global warming is inexplicably misleading.

The scientists who did predict it, though, were vilified.

I'll tell you big secret. It is same for almost every field where you have established theory.

Scientists can be right or can be wrong. Thing is, as you burn fuel you got certain byproducts. Idea that you can limit it artificially via propaganda this just bullshit. Climate change is like sun life problem, it could certainly central be sole problem in the future, but most probably humanity won't make it this long.

It's the repeated false meme that 'big oil' is driving climate denial. In fact, many oil companies have diversified to profit from the new 'green' energy industries aggressively promoted by climate alarmists. IETA is a trade lobby that promotes carbon trading schemes whose existence depends on governments buying into CO2 alarmism. IETA includes such 'big oil' companies as Shell, Total and BP. So brianl's assertion is wrong. Big Energy is playing both sides. The cash thrown behind the climate alarmism lobby dwarfs the the climate sceptic lobby.

As for settled science, the settled science is that there's been no warming for over 15 years. More importantly, the IPCC predictions have failed. You don't need to be in the pay of Big oil, Heartland, the Koch brothers to believe that. It's right there in the body of the IPCC reports

your use of buzz phrases like Koch brothers and big oil may make you feel better about yourself, but it does not improve your perception of the truth.

Try not to post this. Post data, and factual arguments. Not personal attacks.

Numerous oil companies are members of IETA and are actively lobbying for carbon markets and subsidised renewable energy markets

I am slightly lost. What oil companies are doing, what they want? Keep producing big amount of oil? Someone want to cut them, I mean, seriously?

Strange to take the scientific high ground when the scientists associated with the anthropogenic global warming movement have been caught in scientific fraud after fraud, repeatedly undermining even the peer review process (BTW I'm all for alternative energy sources to fossil fuels).

The computer models have been way off, the predictions of polar ice way off, when it gets colder it's CO2, when it gets warmer it's CO2 - etc. etc.. So maybe why people don't engage in this thread is because the religion of CO2 has been so thoroughly discredited and so fanatic in its attacks on anyone who voices skepticism, that people see the failed dogmatism for what it is.

As long as more of the corporate driven madness of AGW isn't implemented in policy, like the unfortunate and fraudulent bankster scam of cap and trade, then all's fine and differing views good and enlightening. But when the scams come out and the bullying of the AGW-movement starts, it makes me want to puke. I remember being likened to a Nazi-sympathiser years back when I voiced some skepticism concerning the now-infamous hockey stick. And automatically you're some evil oil-worshipper, when nothing could be further from the truth. Religious fanatics.

BTW, last I heard the National Space Institute of Denmark wasn't given to oil or based on fossil fuel hand-outs: http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/Research/Research_divisions/Solar_System_Physics/Sun_Climate