From what I notice in the Media, the use of “Climate Change” is a basic term that is often misrepresented and misused in a vague context; — especially by the media advocates of global warming, which definitely doesn’t help the cause. This certainly doesn’t leave the “Climate Change Skeptics” out, because I often hear it thrown about in the wrong context.
I believe the appropriate term that should be used when talking about the theory behind man-made climatic change should be Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), or when specifically speaking about Global Warming, AGW. — Something both sides of the debate seldom do.
For myself, what was most compelling was the fact that Agriculture uses Co2 to artificially create the greenhouse effect to help in growing plants. We know this isn’t correlation, but causative by the increases of Co2 in these glasshouses. For me, explaining it with this very simple analogy – that many people can witness, and relate to – is the easiest way to demonstrate that Co2 can, in fact, cause heating.
Globally, we had levels of around 230ppm, and it has been steadily increasing. Greenhouses use in excess of the estimated 330ppm currently in Earth’s atmosphere, using upwards of 380-1000ppm. I found interesting, at these levels, some plant life actually increase mass by up to 50%.
However, Australia’s domestic emission output is, comparatively negligible, on a nation-based listed, and while advocates for a price on Carbon attempt to skew the issue by pointing out our that our per capita emissions are some in the highest in the world, I think the point is redundant. Countries are sovereign states, and to tackle the issue, nations need to look at their total emissions. Australia’s total emissions; even if it were totally eliminated, would account for less than 1.5% of the what we current;y believe is the world’s anthropogenic emissions.
Environmentally, we should be, and are, seeking out new technologies, developing those we have, and work towards energy sources that require little resources, and produce fewer and manageable quantities of waste. In addition, I believe we should be strongly working towards capturing what is already in the atmosphere
On Emission Reduction:
It should not be a matter of social engineering through reducing the standard of living by a price on carbon.
It should not be a matter of forcing out current technology recklessly, at the expense of a stable economy, or indeed at the cost of taxpayers.
It should be about developing new technology to the stage where it becomes viable as a business and energy source.
Sadly, the Greens have shot themselves in the foot by refusing to bring in Nuclear Power as a transitional source while this process happens, where other countries have taken it up because they don’t have the Coal resources we do. — Now, even if the process towards a Nuclear Reactor were to be brought forward, it would be in excess of 5 years before one would be operation.
I believe the effort to show people what is happening regarding ACC, is by first encouraging them to employ critical thinking, explaining what logical fallacies are, and why they are illogical, and thoroughly explaining the scientific method and the process of peer-review.
I do not believe however it is possible to show evidence to someone who is a denier of ACC, rather you need to make them skeptical thinkers first.