Glen I agree with so much of your approach as to what can be done
however I feel one must be suspicious of any one who states …
"Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced."
I question if the authors report is upon “the facts” then perhaps a break up of whose investigations come down on the side “that it is a natural climate change and it is happening” and/or “is it concluded that humans are responsible”. Or does the 928 selected authors all say it is human induced? I suggest a break up of the issues and some numbers could be an impartial manner in which to present their conclusion. I feel grouping two issues such as they did destroys their impartiality of presentation of the issues…of which there be two not one.
Such a distinction is important when considering what firstly can be done and secondly should be done. I, maybe foolishly, see a plot clearly that certain interests are happy capitalise and introduce the answer that it is humans fault simply so they can provide the solution to a human induced problem. The inference being that if human induced then our goods and services will fix it... for this reason the distinction is vital. This does not mean I say ignore the problem but to address the real problem which is...it will be hotter. The relevance of if human induced comes in to see who is selling what.
From this point one can assume fairy that if the change is natural but human assisted there is little by way of a change in human behaviour that can prevent the hotter future. However by placing all the blame at the feet of humans, profit seeking humans step forward with solutions whereas I doubt if any action by humans can challenge the natural climate change even if the change is being hastened by human pollution. There is no will to do so ..the only evidence of any will is by the nuclear power lobby… save the Great Barrier Reef..go nuclear.. how transparent.. and one can make a boring list of examples of this nature.
So in that context there is a plot and it is unfortunate that emotions run so high on this issue that “the plot” can not be fairly assessed and the real issue of a hotter future be prepared for.
I find it curious that when Dr Suzuki is in town so is the nuclear power lobby. That smacks of politics not science irrespective if he is a pawn or a player.
A fine point but it comes down to facing the inevitable and preparing for it or believing that by changing human behaviour the problem will go away. I personally can not see it being fixed by a new approach to fuel used and I doubt if the problem will go away by changing from coal to nuclear fuel.
I doubt if humans can change their behaviour. Whilst that issue is being argued the climate appears to be getting hotter. The question should be considered... what can humans do to adapt to the new future... Installing nuclear power seems to be the flavour we get from all saying humans are at fault. One must see the problem as... it is coming, and it is somewhat irrelevant if humans are at fault or not (… humans won’t change until they are forced to but this does not mean we need fall for emotive crap clearly designed to confuse an important issue so goods and services can be sold.
And it is very good that we at least talk about the problems we each see in this area for if nothing else we each are attempting to bring about some change that may help in dealing with such an important issue. Just don’t get carried away by the sales hype from whatever quarter.
I ask how serious is our Government when so many simple things can be done to reduce energy consumption.. hot water is something that can be highly subsidised by Solar yet serious attempts to get it installed everywhere are minimal..
Our PM did not say global warming is upon us so let’s get the hot water heaters solar subsidised..or lets fund research for electric cars or follow up on many other valid options to consider.. no straight to consider nuclear and a labelling of any other solutions as “not real”… does that not suggest something? however he saw only nuclear as a solution.. I saw only a vested interest plot to capitalise on a good and wide add campaign to frighten kids and bamboozle adults.. And look at the many proposed tax solutions in the wings..tax it! that will fix it..mmm even the Government is capitalising on the sky is falling routine. I don’t deny there is a problem but much of the problem is the vested interests selling solutions to a problem humans will not, or can not fix… certainly not by nuclear power or higher taxes to curb green house gasses.
Alex