polyama

Note, that ozone is also a greenhouse gas....

ABCDiamond

Some things can be fixed.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8385068.stm

Bix

Let's increase the cost of tobacco........that'll make smokers give up, reduce emmissions and save on the health bill.

Will it fook.

Even if it did the longer life span of smokers would mean extra pollution purely because they live longer....wouldn't it?

Taxes rarely solve issues. Lots of moans and groans for a while then it's forgotten and people continue with their same ways of life but pay more for it.

And if you wish to solve a major problem you tackle the thick edge of the wedge. The biggest scale of return for the least effort and costs.

So nuke USA and China and that's 51.39% of the emmissions problem removed just by sorting 2 countries......and the bonus of a dramatically reduced world population. Could be a smell in the air though.

See, it's easy.

micmay3_in_oz

You can have all the `evidence` you like but let`s face it, very often people will select the evidence to fit in with their own beliefs. Furthermore, it has not been unknown for `experts` to not be totally honest with their research. Cyril Burt is a case in point - 50 years education shaped by fraudulent research... He was a well-respected `expert` whilst he was alive. The much revered 11+ exam based on a farce.

And as for stats supporting either side of the argument just remember the following:

Three graduates are invited for an interview for the position of mathematician within a government departent: one has a degree in pure mathematics, another one in applied math, and the third one obtained his degree in statistics.
All three are asked the same question: "What is one third plus two thirds?"
The pure mathematician: "It's one."
The applied mathematician takes out his pocket calculator, punches in the numbers, and replies: "It's 0.999999999."
The statistician: "What do you want it to be?"

I'll put me head back in the sand.......

Mx

seven seas

Whether you are convinced by the global warming arguments or not, we are certainly f**king this planet up with our waste and destructive ways.

Don't let this one issue decide that you act selfishly and irresponsibly.

1-If there is no global warming, but we try to minimise it, then nobody loses anyway.

2-If we conveniently choose not to be convinced by the arguments, but it turns out to be true, then it'll be too late.

3-If we conveniently choose not to be convinced by the arguments, and it turns out to be false, then the world will be screwed up in so many other ways anyway.


Simple. Even easier than burying your head in the sand.

polyama

First. Try to give up electricity, car, etc ... and show how nobody looses.
Second. 97% of voted in this poll believe that the global warming is real. The majority, however, is not convinced that the impact caused by humans is substantial. If they are right, we ALL loose by wasting limited resources on a hopeless fight with imaginary MMGW instead of using these resources to prepare for the consequences of naturally occurring global warming (or solving other REAL problems such as pollution, hunger, deseases, etc.)

Alfresco

Ah! the Precautionary Principle!

What if, in say 30 years time, scientists discover a previously unknown cause for global warming e.g. the sun and not CO2, do you think any government will refund any climate change taxes that they 'milked' from the people over the previous 30 years?

Would any scientists or governments stand up and make public apologies?

The tax money could have been spent on more important issues as stated above.

For those who haven't seen it yet... (yes I know it's not entirely all true, but what is?)

rinkerdink

I found the venom with which this tv show was received astounding, how dare anybody disagree and what's more get scientific comment... This show destroyed some of the contirbutors careers, there were numerous retractions of statement and missrepresentation claims. Question is, how much of these were due to livelihood threats caused by funding retractions or worse still political fall out.

I read the Crichton novel 'State of Fear' and while I appreciate that it is a work of fiction it certainly started to make me think a lot more about the prospect and indeed the historical examples of the perversion of science for political means.

If we are to presume that the governments of the world are privy to the most accurate and current theory and projections regarding Global Warming/ Climate Change why are we building and enlarging airports worldwide? Why aren't coming down hard on large car engines capacities, why aren't we investing in nuclear power and renewable energy (in more than a token gesture). Is it because they know better?

Dubya was criticised heavily for his dismissal of the Kyoto agreement but I read somewhere that the scientists behind the Kyoto agreement with their own 'models' (that are most likely subjective in their favour) predicted a global temperature drop over the course of 100 years should all states sign up and actually hit the crippling targets (for their economies) of....0.1 DegC.
What would you have done in Dubya's shoes?

Centurion

I've always liked that video. It was the single piece which made me start asking questions when I first saw it.

I believe thats more the inconvenient truth of it all. Have we gone past the point of no return politically though ? Maybe we have.

MartinLuther

Will people stop it with the nuclear. Pissing on your doorstep is not the best way to clean things up after you've been shitting on your doorstep.

Alfresco

Qué Please elucidate or elaborate.

MartinLuther

Nuclear power creates pollution. I don't think it's a good idea to ramp up one type of polluting power generation to combat the problems of another type of polluting power generation.

WillBlack

Life pollutes. Mineral - the way to be.

Alfresco

Ah! ok for something to become clean, something else needs to become dirty! - A universal truth. I agree.

Swerv-o

But we're not seeing anywhere near enough investment in alternatives to make them a viable solution to the burning of coal.

I find it staggering that Australia has no solar furnace infrastructure, given all of the sunshine it receives and open space in abundance. Why aren't we building these systems? Australia should be the market leader in solar energy generation, yet these technologies are still in their infancy here We have a first world economy, yet are clinging to coal and gas, and now the government proposes to pay them money to compensate them. Had we had reasonable investment in solar furnace technology, then we would have had both the infrastructure and the knowledge base required to move (and sell on) this technology in a short time frame.

I don't see that there is much alternative to nuclear power at the moment. We [apparently] need a minimal CO2 solution, and ideally need it pretty quickly. We aren't in a position with any other technology to adequately replace coal and gas to provide our baseload power.

We do have an abundance of uranium right on our doorstep however. Unfortunately instead of exporting our clean power technology and knowledge to the rest of the world we will no doubt end up importing it from China.


S