Global Warming

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

I think it was covered on the second page of this, where someone introduced just the 1st page to the thread:,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html
Im sure you could research the opposition to the idea that yourself, or do you need me to do it for you? The idea that increasing solar radiation is responsible for the 11 of the last 13 years being the highest temperatures on record has been discredited by reputable scientists, Im sure you will be able to find the info without me finding links for you

A writer to today's age says it nicely:

Sceptics say we shouldnt act until we are sure. He agrees, we shouldnt interfere with the earth's delicate climate balance until we are sure adding increasing amounts of CO2 will have no effect.

Im sure that's what you would like drug companies to do when they talk about introducing new pills to the market, rather than "only when we see people dropping dead we will revise our product"

Fair enough, I haven't read all the literature and honestly don't have the time to right now.

Whilst the journalist has a point, (s)he is ignoring the economic implications of major tax reform to control emissions.

As far as I have read, there is no technology (aside from nuclear) which has the ability to provide sustainable baseload power. Wind/solar is too unreliable until storage technology improves dramatically, geothermal is still in its infancy, clean coal is still a dream, hydro power isn't enough.

So there are no commercially viable options (again, aside from nuclear) right now aside from fossil fuels for baseload electricity generation. The solution? To implement a tax system that will only increase the cost of electricity, for how much saving? We are still burning fossil fuels, and will simply pay more for it.

Yes, it could put more dollars into research for cleaner technologies. Don't count on every dollar from the carbon tax though, its a government tax and it will wind up in another department somewhere. And it won't be available tomorrow, or next year.

So until commercially viable, large scale alternatives to fossil fuels for energy production come along (which are still decades away), the dominant source of energy will be fossil fuels, ever increasingly due to China and India. And the government is willing to risk what is left of our industry, for essentially no impact on global emissions. And still whilst there is enough doubt and debate to be worthwhile.

Too many agendas!