The worlds climate has been through change in the past, much more dramatic than what we have witnessed so far, without the effects of man made CO2 polution being a factor. How do we know that the 1.5 degree rise in temperature is not part of some natural and as yet unexplianed fluctuation in the worlds climate?

30 years is the standard usually used, but there is a good duiscussion here

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

Well it’s more environmentally friendly than coal.

the climate scientists never say….(of course…because they sdemm not to have a theory that explains micro effects impacting the macro world)

Ah, just what we said at the top. It is all about pissing off liberals. That all You got. Certainly no science.

Although increasing taxes on some things would cause inflation, decreasing taxes on consumption (i.e. VAT) could partially counteract that. However, the point is to increase prices on certain goods to decrease their consumption, so worrying about inflation is to miss the point slightly, as other less carbon intense good would become cheaper.

The point you missing is that while “it’s not just the oil companies,bankers and the mysterious ranks of “capitalists” that benefit from a fossil fuel economy, everyone does” is only true to an extent. It is only true to the extent that you ignore the social cost of carbon emissions.

Benefits accrue to me by buying food grown with fertilisers derived from fossil fuels but the costs accrue elsewhere. For example, desertification, ocean acidification etc etc etc.

I do not want to derail this post by arguing the finer points of the cholesterol myth. All I’m saying is that many authorities insist the basic science propping up this hypothesis is untenable (and I agree with them).

You may not regard Colpo as a credible authority but in some ways that’s irrelevant because there are many other commentators who have arrived at similar conclusions – time will prove them right in my opinion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1638188?dopt=Abstract

To be clear – I’m NOT arguing against warming.
I freely admit I do not know enough about it (unlike the statin issue) but those who argue with such conviction that their conclusions are correct seem to be driven by political motives rather than a genuine grasp of the science.

Yes how dare you even attempt humour at such disgusting heresy: Climate change deniers should be burnt at the stake with the rest of the heretics.
Deniers, Deniers onto the fires!!!

We tax carbon and the funds collected are used to reduce other taxes.

As Carbon Taxes take effect their revenues will reduce and other taxes will have to rise to take up the slack but the tax burden will be neutral.

This tax would be set at a level whereby the costs of Carbon emissions are reclaimed through taxation. Unfortunately, estimates run between $7 and $154 per tonne of Carbon emitted (pdf), so we’ll probably have to do a bit more research before we know what level to set it at (or alternatively, someone with more resources than google, can find out).

Other taxes on things like petrol could be replaced with this carbon tax so everyone’s happy.

People who use carbon will bear the pain, general taxation could be set a little higher and subsidies provided for those in need, similar to the winter fuel (winter carbon?) allowance.

You wanna sign up Matt?

Seriously, Iain wasn’t joking and winding people up with climate change denial is pretty lame.

Dale must be laughing all the way to “Victor’s” stats bank.

Can someone plot a graph showing number of scientific papers providing evidence of global warming, versus the estimated level of cognitive capability of those arguing against it?

Because the latter just seems to have dropped off a cliff recently. To seriously make an argument of the form _if you want to go to the shops, that is a form of ‘going’, so you must want to go to Alaska’_ is just beyond belief. If some 200 line computer program generated that argument, you would fire up the debugger.

I think it may be time to call a moratorium on all global warming research: any more evidence, and those opposing it may lose the mental capability to chew their food, or breathe…

While you right to point out that the jury is still out, to a considerable extent, when it comes assessing the effectiveness of using statins as a preventative measure, I would suggest that you take a little more care over your choice of sources and authorities.

If you want examples of sceptical commentaries and research then check out the last couple of references (48 & 49) on this Wikipedia article – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins – both of which comes from reputable journals (The Lancet and BMJ).

Just don’t cite Colpo, who has zero credibility and can only get published either by putting out his own e-Books or in JPANDS, which has an utterly abysmal reputation for publishing politicised junk science papers by total crackpots.

In fact, if you take the time to look up Colpo’s main site – http://www.anthonycolpo.com/ – you’ll find that he’s nothing more than another diet industry shark peddling his own diet plans while trying to shit on the competition.

I think this thread has amply demonstrated that you don’t understand anything about anything, so I’m not too worried about the implications for my suggestion.

There is a substantial and profitable industry surrounding statins (worth a billion in the NHS) yet the basic science does not stack up.

This is not the view of a sole contrarian (as you suggest) – look at this, there are several authorities who feel very uneasy about mass statinisation.
http://www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/

In fact, statins are a perfect example of the consequences that arise when scientific myth and public gullibility collide.

I must admit I’m not surprised by skepticism to climate change, especially when terms like ‘denial’ are bandied about, and substantial sums of money ride on the back of belief in certain complex theories.

I wish there was something before Physics 101 and Economics 101 that I could sign you up for.

From the IMF.

The science of the issue can get pretty incomprehensible pretty quickly. And the politics are clearly very ugly. Let’s not forget, however, that much of the economics is simple.

It’s an externality, stupid — so price it.

Doh… the market DOES decide now, and the warmist say we are using too much. I ask again, how will you ration fossil fuel usage ? I also don’t understand why you would tax something and subsidise it