Fulhamish says -

He believes that

1) we are affecting our climate by our actions in burning fossil fuels (see previous discussion.

2) He cannot be sure how. The statistics on warming do not convince him (see previous discussion). More ''traditional'' painstaking work is required here as an immediate priority.

3) He has had a wealth of experience with computational modelling which makes him highly suspect of its use a predictive tool for climatic change (see previous discussion)

4) Science, by the way funding works in practice, has been very highly politicised. This principally relates to point 3) above (see previous discussion)

5) The political class is not really interested in going out on a limb to tackle the issue. When push comes to shoove they do not do what is necassary but only appear to place their own interests first. (see previous discussion)

6) To dismiss an argument by branding it a consspiracy theory is stupid (see previous discussion).

Whats to be done -

1) Real empirical science (see previous discussion)

2) Masive investment in all forms of renewables, both directly and by tax subsidy. Funded by ALL of the money from taxing carbon energy, as a bare minimum (see previous discussion)

3) A UN led effort to perfect fussion generation

4) And, most importantly the political class to lead by example (see previous discussion)

1) Real empirical science (see previous discussion)

- see below

2) Masive investment in all forms of renewables, both directly and by tax subsidy. Funded by ALL of the money from taxing carbon energy, as a bare minimum (see previous discussion)

- ring-fencing, apparently called earmarking in the US, probably ties the hands of the gov as regards fund raising. this is something i found after a short search: http://endingspending.com/about/ figure it out for yourself, cause i don't know enough about the issue

3) A UN led effort to perfect fussion generation

- iter, not UN led, but still a massive international project.


4) And, most importantly the political class to lead by example (see previous discussion)

- See below.

SCIENCE - 'real empirical science' and computational modelling are both useful tools. The fact is complex systems are really hard to predict, physicists haven't studied them before BECAUSE they are complex. it's not for no reason that we haven't had the mathematical tools to tackle them until the 70s.

I specifically studied with the complex systems group in my university, so i've a little bit of an idea of what i'm talking about (though i am mostly claiming I can't predict these sorts of systems AT ALL, so it's just a claim that i know i'm incapable of doing this science well...)

I don't know what experience you have of computational models, but i do know they are nothing but a tool, and while it is easy to model something unphysical (it's also easy to theorize something unphysical - yet i don't see you offering the same criticism of pure theory as a tool for understanding physical systems)

Conclusions can only come from using the best tools we have, and that includes computational modelling - along with decent error analysis to give a good idea of how precise the models are.

POLITICS - politicians you claim should lead by example. First politicians should try to convince the people that their actions are required. Good leadership is hard. Actually personally getting to know someone, gaining their trust and convincing them you (something we do in diplomacy) takes time.

Being a leader in a representative democracy has to be hard - you don't get to spend time with the people you're trying to lead, they don't get to see you actually working. It gets worse the bigger the population you are representing (local reps have an easier time actually getting to know their constituency - the president of america has ~350 million people to 'lead')

The point of an opposition party is to point out flaws in the ruling party's actions. (of course i'm thinking about a parliamentary democracy, but it's much the same in the US mess...) If the Science is right then that doesn't require the opposition to admit this, in fact tactically it may be pretty suicidal to do so. They may instead fund their own organisations to create new 'science' - tobacco companies did it for years... Good scientists can be attacked for any mistakes they have made (and everyone makes some mistakes) And as pointed out this makes 'news' (as opposed to 'science gets it right')

as opposed to fusion i'd suggest taking a look a new fission technology
http://greenideastoday.com/2010/03/bill-gates-foundation/

Bill Gates actually presented a great arguement for new fission, and i think demonstrates pretty good leadership...

''Bill Gates actually presented a great arguement for new fission, and i think demonstrates pretty good leadership...''

I admit to being a little ambivalent about fussion for all of the well rehersed arguments on both sides. One which is rarely brought up, however, is that the supply of uranium appears to be finite in the medium term -

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article555314.ece

On renewables pv and wind are well known. However, there are other alternatives - solar hot water could be economic now in most of the world.
Tidal seems be a sure winner to me ( albeit liitle limited in scope). Solar towers might instigate a new hydrogen based economy. I am guessing I am trying to say that we have many varied practical options to fussion, given enough support.


To me also wave power has been sorely neglected ever since the government decided to pull the plug on this very promising scheme:

http://earthsci.org/mineral/energy/wavpwr/wavepwr.html#Salter

This will I believe come to be seen as one of the biggest mistakes of the last 50 years and it is exactly what you get when those in power have little if any scientific/technical background at best an a conspiritorial self-interested malovelence at best -

Scuppering the waves: how they tried to repel clean energy David Ross
[Science and Public Policy, volume 29, number 1, February 2002, pages 25-35, Beech Tree Publishing]
This link has had to be frequently remade as it breaks very often. I wonder why........

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/beech/03023427/v29n1/s3.pdf?expires=1293382899&id=60412035&titleid=898&accname=Guest+User&checksum=67307FDB1B27E56426F5F6707CC0CDEF

If you are interested I very much suggest that you download and pass it on. Does that brand me as a conspiracy theorist?

soz ambivalence should be about fission not fussion.....my crap English again.

This is all very fun and all, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. Even if we achieve the wildest dreams of green campaigners and cut global CO2 emissions to a fith of what they are now by the end of the century (and judging by the lack of success we've had so far on this issue there is almost no chance whatsoever of this happening) global temperatures will still rise on average 2 degrees in the same time scale (expect big fluctuations especially at the poles). [My predictions come from the work of the good old IPCC]

Cutting CO2 emissions will NOT stop climate change. CO2 is already in the atmosphere in relatively huge quantities and isn't going away any time soon, and even an industry crippling and quality of life reducing cut in emissions will still leave us adding to it in significant amounts.

Our only hope to stop climate change is geo-engineering, and to pull that off we need big business and big industry on side. We (those who believe climate change exists because we believe in science above wishful thinking) are fighting the wrong battles, and a hell of a lot is at stake.

'This is all very fun and all, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. Even if we achieve the wildest dreams of green campaigners and cut global CO2 emissions to a fith of what they are now by the end of the century'

Bill gates would aim to cut emissions to Zero, not by reducing power consumption, or increasing efficience, or even by cutting population growth (total human emmision = power per service X effeciency of service X services per person X population of earth - and he believes we should be aiming to increase services per person, especially in the developing world - and it looks like population growth will more or less counter improvements in efficiency)

So the aim is - cut emmission per service to Zero, that means you keep power usage high while finding a realistic way to create enough Zero-carbon emitters.

No industry crippling is required. In fact industry will be required to produce this new power output - and then (at least from bill gate's prespective) - industry will continue to be required to provide services to everyone...

Geo-engineering is very hard.