Global warming

NikB

One of the problems with this is the assumption that the government will direct said taxes towards offsetting potential climate change. Given the empty coffers in the UK at least I have serious doubts that any substantial amount of tax raised is going to do anything other than be used to repay some of our debt.

Also if climate change were truly so important that the fate of mankind (or the western world at least) is going to be altered forever within the next century, why is nothing realistic being done about it? There is no political will to actually stop the burning of fossil fuels etc. Do those that believe in man made climate change really think a few token wind farms are going to save us? Do you really believe that increasing fuel duty is a way of getting us to use our cars less? It won't happen, not in the country or the USA at least.

I believe that if the government was truly worried about our future then emergency laws would have been brought in to change industry and our lifestyles in an attempt to curb potential disaster. An example of this would be banning supermarkets from flying in out of season fruits or vegetables from other continents. Or on the flip side, they've been advised that nothing can be done about it and are keeping the fact that we're all doomed very quiet

NikB

Overpopulation of our planet is a very real threat, probably far more significant than CO2 production. With an exponentially expanding population and greater pressures on land to produce more food we are in for rough times ahead. Soil quality across the globe is declining rapidly and water shortages are becoming more common. These are things that need immediate attention, and whilst the climate is tied into this is should be a lesser concern than CO2 output. Global population is almost at 7 billion and should reach 9 billion before the end of the century. That's a 50% increase in human population in a little over 100 years. There just aren't the resources to support that. So yes population control should be implemented. I'm not saying let ill people die but restricting family size is a must. Why anyone needs more than 2 kids these days I do not understand.

johntheexpat

Well, I don't think you'll find anyone here who believes that HMG will use carbon taxes specifically for reducing consumption of fossil fuels.  It does seem to be just another tax.  The duty on cigarettes, for example, is no longer providing enough as people give up the ciggies, so revenue is generated elsewhere.  

Well I for one believe that behind all the puff, not a jot of difference will be made.
All the wind farms, solar panels, electric cars etc will just keep the cost of energy slightly lower which will keep consumption slightly higher.  The oil producers will continue to pump with maybe some slight reduction if market forces push the prices high enough. ("We have enough income from oil at the moment, lets not pump everything at once. That will reduce prices and mean we run out sooner" type of thinking)
It strikes me as bloody weird that all the grants etc are going towards alternative forms of generation, rather than positive measures to reduce consumption.  You get money thrown at you for having enough dosh already to install solar panels, but try getting money thrown at you for insulation or other measures to reduce you power usage and you will get laughed at*)

I read today that the Americans have developed technology that will enable them to access commercially shale gas. They reckon there's enough cheap gas available to keep Uncle Sam going for 100 years.
That will keep oil prices down which means more will be burnt.

On the whole, I'm very pessimistic about any efforts to contain MMGW.
The Governments have hijacked it, the media have sensationalized it, the people don't believe it and quite honestly, the will just isn't there.

What I won't accept is that people blame and slag off the scientists and claim it is a conspiracy and a pack of lies, just because they don't like the potential consequences of our current lifestyle.

Hence my constant repetitive requests for a 'Denier' to actually show us where the science is wrong.

*Having said that, The Carbon Trust did give away rolls of loft insulation a while back, for those who were aware the offer was there.  But I think most people had trouble getting any after one of the moderators of this forum stocked up (I assume he installed it at home, as was intended!)

NikB

You may consider me a denier. However I consider myself a skeptic. I believe that the models are insufficient to explain any potential outcomes especially when we can't claim to know all the factors that go into making up the climate. It seems to me that it is no longer considered a theory but an established fact. Even evolution which have a massive amount of evidence to support it is still just a theory. I actually think it naive to say that 'scientists' know it all. I'm not much for the conspiracy (even though I do love a good conspiracy plot) but I do believe there is an unbelievable amount of arrogance involved - both on the behalf of mankinds supposed importance on the planet and in the 'modelers' who think they've got it all right.

In any other science if the observed effects didn't match the model's prediction then it would be assumed that the theory was wrong and they'd have to start over again. This does not seem to be the case in climate science - there is a lot of backtracking etc which has led to much of the skepticism and possibly even the conspiracy theories.

DPinBucks

First off, I suggest you find out the meaning of 'theory', and come back and modify your post accordingly.  Then we'll be in a position to assess its merits from a clearer basis.

DPinBucks

It's amazing none has, isn't it, considering how many people out there know it's wrong?  There's an instant Nobel Prize waiting.

Miyazaki

The trouble is the term 'theory' has a completely different meaning to the layperson. I often wish scientists would use another term that has the scientific meaning of theory. Hopefully it would be a term that has no meaning to the layperson, so they have to look it up and find out what it means before they can use it themselves.

Another worry is the anti-intellectual plague that seems to be coming over the Atlantic from the USA.

DPinBucks

I fully agree, but there's no excuse for someone who wants to argue the toss on science issues not to make sure they know the meaning of the terms they use. For sure, this particular issue is aired often enough on this forum and elsewhere.

I've sometimes wondered if 'Law' would work as an alternative.  'Law of Gravitation'; 'Law of Evolution'.  Might work.  The trouble is, any word which is used will probably have some non-scientific connotation to cause confusion.

In any case, there isn't a specific 'Theory' of MMGW.  It's an inevitable consequence of the action of physical Laws and effects: Conservation of Heat & Energy; Thermodynamics; Black Body Radiation; Radiation Capture.

Wild Weasel

No one has proved the Loch Ness Monster's existence or not yet either.

NikB

I'm well aware of what theories are. Evolution is an inevitable consequence of selection pressures but it's still a theory. You cannot call evolution law as it still not that certain. Of course there is no evidence a yet that disproved the theory but it would only take 1 thing to turn up that didnt fit for the whole thing to fall apart. I would be gutted if this were to happen as I find evolution a magnificent process.

If there is no theory or hypothesis on mmgw or climate change then how are the experiments designed with which to test it.

To all the people making assumptions about other people's scientific or non scientific backgrounds what do you do for a living?