I beg to differ. That's exactly what they're calling for. And I've personally called out the CEO of BP on several occasions, and to be fair, he actually replied and took on board what I was asking. 

BP announced it has "more money than it knows what to do with". 

If you can publicly state that, you need to firstly sack your PR team, then sack the operational team as clearly they aren't feeding in the developments and sustainable projects that need to be done which could easily take account of this. 

Having loads of money in this sense isn't a bad thing, but surely that could make a whopping dent in renewables projects, or infrastructure changes etc. to push things forward in a better manner. 

Broadgage, you are spouting nonsense. Perhaps you would care to discuss DATA instead of propaganda. The NASA data for global temperature from satellite measurements is not increasing in any significant way. Our food production is doing very nicely thanks due to increased CO2. The thermodynamics say that the "Greenhouse" effect doesn't exist, the original proposition was made a long time ago, and was erroneous then. Rising oceans are not a problem at present rates, and even these measurements are rather unreliable. Animals in general do better in hotter temperatures rather than cold ones. In other words, you must prove beyond doubt that there is an emergency, such would require killing about 5 Billion people to make a difference. Why are you not protesting about China and India building HUGE numbers of coal power stations? Basically why the UK, whatever we do, it is impossible to make a worldwide difference? What part of that do you not understand, and why do your "friends" not understand it either? I am very happy to discuss the thermodynamics with you, but reading a textbook would probably be easier. I will ask the first question of the discussion. What exactly (at a molecular level) is temperature? BTW we also need to include the Physics of the Sun, what is the mechanism of energy absorption by gases, the effects of pressure and convection and many other topics, including the laws of thermodynamics. It might take a while, but not understanding all of this you cannot have an opinion, and neither should the IET as very few members could cope, many have enough trouble with simple electrical systems!

Yes Simon. This is precisely why greenhouse CO2 is often raised very significantly in commercial production of plants. Up to 1000 ppm may be used, but the exact amount is simply based on the cost and additional return from doing it. Arron is not being very honest here, it is quite obvious he reads stuff but does not study what the article says and most particularly whether the data (proof) actually corresponds to the text.

One cannot "do something" until one fully understands what needs to be achieved. Well, I do lots of stuff, and did a quick back of the envelope calculation of the Li battery weight to store a days UK electricity consumption, with a few assumptions like batteries may get better. So 1 kWhr per kg of battery, fair enough? The battery for a day would weigh about 1 million tons! (50GW x 24 hrs etc). The problem is that this is more than all the Li cells ever made so far! To make the Grid work, it has been estimated we need between 20 and 30 days of storage. So 20-30 million tons of some of the most reactive materials on Earth, not in one place squire!. The biggest point is that is way more than the known reserves, and the UK is only 2% of the Electricity supply for the world! Either way we would end up in WW3 over resources.....

I think I should make a comment on computer models, particularly electrical/electronic ones. Those not in these industries may not understand these or the reasons for them, but that is not the point. They have been under development for probably all my career (more than 40 years) and I have used many. 30 years ago poor modelling performance bankrupted a company I worked for, a design didn't work as predicted and was useless and unmodifiable (it was inside a chip). Now the same industry models are almost perfect, and the reason is simple: the errors were analysed and corrected, the results were made to match reality from first principles, with understanding.

Climate models, and to a slightly lesser extent weather models, are much less complex than these engineering models, yet it seems that the owners, writers and users are not prepared to accept that they are not correctly predictive, and as a consequence modify them until they are. I have been trying for years to get a climate modeller to feed in the starting parameters for say 1930, and see the result, and properly compare it with the actual observed outcome. Saying they don't want to is far too mild, and the excuses as to why not are myriad and simply unscientific. Even they know why they don't want to do this, and the answer will be like the early engineering models, they are nothing like good enough!

The reasons for this are simple, there is no money in a model which does not predict excessive warming or some other disaster. To date the best fitting to reality is a Russian one. The IPCC have a bunch of models and the latest mathematically ridiculous thing they are doing is averaging the results to give an "accurate" answer! I think that anyone with any maths knowledge can see that this is totally unsound, and cannot be supported in any way. That is where your "doom" numbers are coming from, unlike modern aircraft designs where even tiny errors have to be found and removed. Would you fly in a climate model, I wouldn't?

Well they could spent it on Clean Coal technology, we have the answer to our energy shortage lying beneath our feet, millions of tons of it.

I don't know what planet some of these people in Govt live on. At a time where an awful lot of people are struggling to make ends meet, these cloth eared dumb idiots think it is a great idea to lump massive extra costs onto the people when this country's carbon emissions amount to only 1% of global emissions.

Until China and India stop building new coal fired power stations, anything we do is like peeing in the wind. Why anyone advocates a greater percentage of renewables on the grid as a sustainable way forward is beyond me.

Nuclear? You can only use the nuclear stations for baseload because they can't be turned on and off quickly.

Let's keep this respectful please. There's a debate going on and there's no room for insults. 

While this is a contentious issue everyone needs to accept and be respectful of other people's views. 

Realistically LiIon isn't the technology for long-term storage.  It's good for those sudden unexpected loads.  Perhaps a power station has gone offline and it will take an hour to ramp up another one.  LiIon cells can deliver a lot of current for their size if needed.

But there are other battery chemistries, and other ways of storing energy that wouldn't normally be described as "batteries".  We need to be seriously investigating those.  But this being the UK, we're more likely to wait for the Chinese to do it, and then buy all the storage from them.

I do see your point. 

Maybe there's work to do then in connecting with suitable parties who have access to the model data and running some of these analyses? 

I suppose I'm personally just sceptical (I'm not saying it can't happen though), that so many scientists and engineers worldwide are coming to the same conclusion regarding the climate but they're working with data we're saying is not fully scrutinised.  

The problem is not that there are many who disagree, but that they are not able to comment due to ENORMOUS political pressure from many areas of power. Many have been sacked from Universities for even mentioning this and you just try to get a proper scientific paper published in any of the "big" journals, it is immediately ridiculed for not following "the consensus view", and peer reviewed into oblivion. You will of course immediately understand that none of this is "Science" as we understand it, the entire process has been broken.