Given our propensity to aim missiles at each other over these issues in the past, I've avoided becoming part of this debate to date. Well... I can't any longer
I'm going to clarify my position a little. I'm what I'd call a "political sceptic", not a "scientific sceptic". If I could be completely and utterly sure that the scientists entering into these debates with the loudest voices were not being unduly swayed by politics at the hand of any government with an unrelated agenda, then I'd be completely happy to listen... but I find that I can't be.
Thorium over uranium, wind or solar over coal-fired - at the end of the day we're running out of resources that have contributed to our current position - and we need to find answers quickly. Things have to change - and soon. Whether thorium is entertained as a base load power source, or some other newer reactor technology such as PBR (pebble bed reactors) is employed, maybe our government will channel some of this carbon tax into properly-audited research to point us in the right direction - if they're still functional enough to do so, which is debatable. Nuclear energy (fission) has more than its fair share of associated dangers and problems, relating to environmental concerns over contamination due to natural disaster, and then storage of spent material. Bring on fusion some say - surely it would have been written off by now if it were theoretically and practically unattainable. Research goes on, and I hope that it bears fruit because it seems like a panacea.
What I think the scientists and politicians have missed is... marketing. If you go with the flow you're called a "green fool" by some, if you oppose it you're a "denier" by the others. Come on guys - surely it can't be that hard to prove the central & salient point one way or another for the masses: is the balance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as truly critical as some scientists and pro-carbon politicians promise it is? Government advice maintains that the so-called anthropogenically derived swing is critically dangerous to our atmospheric balance. To drill the point home properly, they should ask the scientists to perhaps demonstrate this in some appropriately-designed lab experiment if they can. So
WHY is it so critical? This has never, as far as I'm concerned, been adequately explained to the man in the street. "It just is - we're scientists, so believe us" doesn't cut it in this debate. I have the UTMOST respect for mainstream science, but marketing these derivations ain't their strong point. I can understand the notion of a "point of criticality", but I don't think that most do, could or would.
Surely it can't be too hard to explain, if it's the undeniable truth, that a swing of only several parts per million will change the nature of our atmosphere in the way it transmits or blocks/traps infra red energy. Is there some narrow-band effect whereby the transmission qualities of the atmosphere change incredibly rapidly at, or around, some demonstrable point? If so, then tell the world this and
demonstrate it. Even if it's not a true parallel, the point would be made easier to understand and relate to. As it is, it's easier to assume that this mightn't be the case, and that a few percentile points either way is not going to do the damage proposed. The reasoning and resultant scepticism behind a super-urgent introduction of a carbon tax is what it seems - a grab for cash otherwise.
I'm asking scientists here on IIS -
can the actual science be demonstrated rather than ear-bashed into us? If so, then it might not result in so much fervent opposition, but until then it's all heresay to the common man. Show it to the general population on television, show it to them in the newspapers and magazines in glorius colour- don't just refer them to a bunch of scientific white papers and ask them to interpret them because they quite simply can't. People are generally visual -
so give them vision! Where's Julius Sumner-Miller when you need him, eh? If the basic thermodynamics could be simply and convincingly demonstrated then I believe that the question on whether the carbon tax is relevant could be finally resolved for most, and then the next question be entertained - what to do with it.