Newsflash: Global Warming Is Real

Sure, move people away from those areas that will be the worst affected by global warming, but this isn’t going to solve the very real problem that we and our environment are facing. We need to start to consider ways of reversing the trend. We could try implementing a global environmental tax, which would see businesses everywhere investing in a global green agenda. We could also try rolling out the use of fusion power, which provides a near-limitless, pollution free and cheap source of energy. So far, fusion power is only being tested in the South of France, with the creation of the first fusion power generator (ITER). We could also try a number of “techno-fixesâ€, such as absorbing plankton and growing artificial trees in order to aid the environment. Inevitably, what’s already done cannot largely be undone, however we need to put more effort into doing what we can to halt global warming, rather than just burying our heads and hiding away from it.

Global warming is happening? well no s$it Sherlock! I think part of the issue here is a failure of the many deniers to understand a basic concept of scientific "uncertainty". There is never 100% certainty in any science. Gravity remember is still just a “theory†(and deniers who doubt this theory I’d advise to take a jump off something high and you’ll be pleasantly surprised to discover that much about what we know about gravity is accurate ;0 ). 100% certainty in anything is called “faith†which has nothing to do with science. So its normal for there to be some grey areas of doubt when it comes to any science nor indeed is there anything strange about there being 1 or 2 scientists in the wings who disagree with the mainstream view (problem is they’re usually wrong!). One or two data sets contradicting the mainstream is not unheard of, in fact its perfectly normal, but much be weighted up against the overwhelming evidence supporting that mainstream view. I discuss this further in this post: http://daryan.blog.co.uk/2011/02/11/anti-science-part-ii-science-under-attack-10567629/ Furthermore there is the precautionary principle to consider. That says that if you detect a reasonable high risk of a calamity occurring, then rather than waiting around for that risk to be proven correct (by a pile of dead bodies potentially) you act accordingly to offset that risk. I propose that the IPCC has provided more than ample evidence for us to invoke this principle. Again I discuss the precautionary principle here: http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/the-precautionary-principle/ So if the deniers are to be taken seriously then they have to not only conclusively prove the planet isn’t warming (which means coming up with many vast reams of data in support, not one or two badly drawn graphs full of school boy errors) and more importantly explain why all the present research supporting AGW is wrong (hint, that would pretty much involve overturning many centuries of research into climatology, geology and chemistry!). In short the onus is on the deniers to prove AGW wrong, its not the IPCC’s job to prove its 100% right (as that’s a physical impossibility). They have even come close to trying to do that, indeed I would argue they’ve often merely strengthen the case in favour of AGW.

O.C. I would just correct you on a factual point, ITER is more of a proof of concept device than an actually prototype fusion powerplant. It will only run for a maximum of 1,000 seconds at a time and its not actually planned that it will generate any electricity. Those objectives require a further wait for the follow on DEMO plant and the commercial protype PROTO, which probably won't be up and running till the 2060's by my reckoning.....if we're lucky! I think I discussed this further here: http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/11/a-critical-analysis-of-future-nuclear-reactors-designs/