Slashdot Mirror

Precisely!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227115.500-humans-prefer-cockiness-to-expertise.html

The quality of a programmer is often proportional to his ego.

Be careful: Humans confuse cockiness with expertise.

I'll only ride your ass if you aren't passing the person next to you, or if you don't get over when you have a chance. But even then, there's nobody in the world that can react fast enough to someone slamming on the brakes from tailgating distance, and the accident would probably end up being my fault, so I don't do it often. I think most of us (90% or more) understand this and drive that way. It only takes a few fucknuggets to screw it up for everyone else, though.

The global surface temperature is a part of the bigger picture - just because the oceans store the majority of heat, this does not imply that the global surface temperature is useless. As for the "Hockey Stick": Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong, quotes:

The conclusion that we are making the world warmer certainly does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.

And:

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

The "Hockey Stick" was investigated by the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found:

the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

Of course, if you believe that the US National Academy of Science is in on the conspiracy, then this is what you'd expect them to say!

people like you keep providing links to 'discredit' them that are complete BS.

Ah, yes, It's all a big conspiracy! And New Scientist is in on it!

In fact, if you had read beyond the first few paragraphs you would have answered your own question:

As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise...

How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.

and:

Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

I wonder why these discredited myths keep getting moderated up on Slashdot time and time again

Maybe these 'discredited' myths keep getting mentioned because people like you keep providing links to 'discredit' them that are complete BS.

Here's a direct quote from your link arguing over temperatures peaking in 1998:

According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began

So that seems to confirm there certainly does exist at least some evidence for claims about a peak in 1998. Hardly seems to discredit the idea to me. Oh, but the site does have an explanation:

The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea. ...
falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.

So would it not follow then that rising surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is gaining heat, either? Seems that your source in fact is trying to discredit one of, if not the single strongest, pieces of evidence FOR global warming.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

I'm surprised you didn't mention Mars and Pluto.

I wonder why these discredited myths keep getting moderated up on Slashdot time and time again - it's almost as if there's a conspiracy to make skeptics look ill-informed.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

I'm surprised you didn't mention Mars and Pluto.

I wonder why these discredited myths keep getting moderated up on Slashdot time and time again - it's almost as if there's a conspiracy to make skeptics look ill-informed.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

I'm surprised you didn't mention Mars and Pluto.

I wonder why these discredited myths keep getting moderated up on Slashdot time and time again - it's almost as if there's a conspiracy to make skeptics look ill-informed.

Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

Why do these discredited myths get moderated up on Slashdot again and again? Seriously.

Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

Why do these discredited myths get moderated up on Slashdot again and again? Seriously.

Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

Why do these discredited myths get moderated up on Slashdot again and again? Seriously.

Most of what I know about global warming is what I read in Science magazine, in the news roundups and the editorials. As I recall, they said that some models, on the 5% shoulder of the probability curve, give a 10-meter rise in sea level by 2100.

In your model, what is the economic cost of a 10-meter rise in sea level?

About 6 and 2/3rds less than what you're thinking they'd be. Keep in mind that most of the melting ice would be from land, and the resulting equilibrium of less weight causes the land to rise.

I saw this at New Scientist yesterday and almost submitted it, until I actually read the article.

Oh you newbies, reading articles before submitting them.

I saw this at New Scientist yesterday and almost submitted it, until I actually read the article. The bombardment that makes it transparent only lasts for fractions of a nanosecond before the foil is comlpetely destroyed. A few commenters there pointed to some wikipedia articles with other transparent metals. One commenter said

I always thought the "transparent aluminum" of Startrek was a tongue-in-cheek thing - on the basis that it has existed both naturally and man-made for donkeys years. Ok, it is aluminium OXIDE (sapphire) instead of JUST aluminium - but it is transparent, incredibly strong, extremely hard and is made out of nowt more exotic than aluminium and oxygen.

Ruby the same of course but with a few chromium atoms bunged in for good measure and a nice red tint.

Then there's Aluminium oxynitride which comes far closer to the Star Trek windows:

Aluminium oxynitride (AlON) is a transparent ceramic composed of aluminium, oxygen and nitrogen. It is marketed under the name ALON and described in U.S. Patent 4,520,116. The material remains solid up to 1,200 C (2,190 F), and is harder than glass. When formed and polished as a window, the material currently (2005) costs about US$10 to US$15 per square inch (~ US$20,000/m).

It is currently the crucial outer layer of experimental transparent armor being considered by the US Air Force for the windows of armored vehicles. Other applications include semiconductors and retail fixtures.

Transparent ceramics:

Most ceramic materials, such as alumina and its compounds, are formed from fine powders, yielding a fine grained polycrystalline microstructure which is filled with scattering centers comparable to the wavelength of visible light. Thus, they are generally opaque materials, as opposed to transparent materials. Recent nanoscale technology has, however, made possible the production of polycrystalline transparent ceramics such as transparent alumina.

The value of the work described in TFA isn't that they made transparent aluminum, but

for an instant, Wark and his team can create a new state of matter that is as dense as ordinary solid matter, but extremely hot. "That is the sort of matter you would get towards the centre of a giant planet," says Wark.

The team hopes to study the properties of this hot, dense matter using new, more powerful lasers such as the Linac Coherent Light Source at Stanford, California. These lasers produce higher-energy X-rays that could probe the structure of the new material and measure its properties - perhaps providing some insight into the heart of Jupiter and the other giant planets.

The reluctance to release the data and the destruction of data is a red flag that something isn't kosher.

The data set is copyrighted. No data has been destroyed. If you were employed as a researcher by a British university you could almost certainly get access to the data set.

However, there's a ton of grant money to be had by the climate scientists and much power & control to be gained by government by promoting a climate crisis, so it isn't too surprising.

Ah, the old funding conspiracy. Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

and hormones in the hair shampoo.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2119-early-puberty-linked-to-shampoos.html

• Clouds - yes, difficult to simulate, they may speed up or slow down global warming, but this does not mean global warming is not happening.
• Measurement uncertainty - some photos from a web site should scare me? Hmm. Let's ask some other people:

  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report: Q: "Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?" A: "None at all... Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."

  Gavin Schmidt: "They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset" Realclimate

• The oceans are driving climate change? Hmmm, sounds like a newer version of Climate myths: The oceans are cooling. Of course there's a correlation between global warming and ocean temperature, it would be absurd if there weren't. This doesn't mean that the ocean is the driver of current global warming, and of course the ocean is a massive heat and carbon sink so it does play a part.
• Gore? Surely invoking the name of a political figure in a scientific argument is just some kind of inverse appeal to authority? :-) If anyone else had mentioned "George W. Bush's ideas on global warming" I'm sure you'd be the first to point out their logical failure.

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter should answer your question.

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

I live in the northern latitudes (Sweden). There's absolutely nothing unusual about the weather/climate today

One of the common misconceptions about "global warming" is that everywhere in the world will become warmer; this is not true, "global warming" refers to the average temperature increasing. Some places may get colder, some may get warmer, and some may stay the same. The region you live in may have a climate that hasn't changed, and it may not change in the near future, but this does not imply that the climate in the rest of the world is not changing.

The sun drives the clouds and the winds, and the ocan cycles. Those have wavelengths of 30-60 years, it seems. That coincides really well with the decades of cooling, warming, cooling and warming we've seen the last century.

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

See this excellent essay against Mars and in favor of exploring the asteroids, Phobos, Deimos, or Earth's moon by NSS Board of Governors member and former L5 board adviser Eric Drexler, Space Development: The Case Against Mars

This recent NewScientist article overviews a recent report from the NSS co-authored by Buzz Aldrin with a similar conclusion, Astronaut-authored report says NASA needs new direction

Neuroscience is the field that is considered as the more scientifically rigorous counterpart to psychology. This is the science being used to duplicate the brain. The limitations of our current understandings that you are talking about are not limitations of science itself, just a limitation of our current level of understanding. There is no inherent limitation to the scientific process that bars it from being used to further our understanding in these areas. The recent creation of a new fundamental circuit component the "memristor" has opened up new possibilities in synthetic brain-like circuitry, which bodes well for more brain-like computer technology.

Simply because something is vastly complex does not mean it will never be possible to understand it in any useful way. Unless there is some specific reason that the brain is permanently impossible to understand, asserting that claim is an "argument from personal incredulity".

"Formal scientists" don't even consider Psychology a science, but "an academic and applied discipline involving the systematic, and often scientific, study of human/animal mental functions and behavior".

Since psychology doesn't comply as "real science", how can "scientists" duplicate the machine that controls most of human behaviour?

Brain itself operates on the edge of chaos, it is also the organ that controls the minds of philosophers, musicians, painters, and artists. Computers only emulate "left-side" brain functions - they "take pieces, line them up, and arrange them in a logical order; then it draws conclusions" - they can beat Einstein on calculus but they can't create art and inventions as Mozart or Da Vinci.

I believe and embrace science, but I am also aware of it's own limitations. Science, like computers, is merely a tool - good for some jobs but not for all.

Outlawing behavior that only endangers one's self is akin to forcing women into burquas, outlawing behavior that endangers others is not. Studies have shown that while you're yakking on your phone, you're more dangerous than a drunk driver. You would legalize drunk driving?

That said, yes, sometimes I'll answer the phone while driving, but I make it short (thirty seconds). Anybody stupid enough to TEXT while driving is IMO too stupid to be issued a license.

The problem with teenagers isn't the hormones, it's the inexperience and the fact that the teenaged brain is not fully developed.

Teen angst rooted in busy brain
Why teenagers can't see your point of view
The five ages of the brain: Adolescence
Teenagers fail to see the consequences
Teen brains show low motivation

Outlawing behavior that only endangers one's self is akin to forcing women into burquas, outlawing behavior that endangers others is not. Studies have shown that while you're yakking on your phone, you're more dangerous than a drunk driver. You would legalize drunk driving?

That said, yes, sometimes I'll answer the phone while driving, but I make it short (thirty seconds). Anybody stupid enough to TEXT while driving is IMO too stupid to be issued a license.

The problem with teenagers isn't the hormones, it's the inexperience and the fact that the teenaged brain is not fully developed.

Teen angst rooted in busy brain
Why teenagers can't see your point of view
The five ages of the brain: Adolescence
Teenagers fail to see the consequences
Teen brains show low motivation

Outlawing behavior that only endangers one's self is akin to forcing women into burquas, outlawing behavior that endangers others is not. Studies have shown that while you're yakking on your phone, you're more dangerous than a drunk driver. You would legalize drunk driving?

That said, yes, sometimes I'll answer the phone while driving, but I make it short (thirty seconds). Anybody stupid enough to TEXT while driving is IMO too stupid to be issued a license.

The problem with teenagers isn't the hormones, it's the inexperience and the fact that the teenaged brain is not fully developed.

Teen angst rooted in busy brain
Why teenagers can't see your point of view
The five ages of the brain: Adolescence
Teenagers fail to see the consequences
Teen brains show low motivation

Outlawing behavior that only endangers one's self is akin to forcing women into burquas, outlawing behavior that endangers others is not. Studies have shown that while you're yakking on your phone, you're more dangerous than a drunk driver. You would legalize drunk driving?

That said, yes, sometimes I'll answer the phone while driving, but I make it short (thirty seconds). Anybody stupid enough to TEXT while driving is IMO too stupid to be issued a license.

The problem with teenagers isn't the hormones, it's the inexperience and the fact that the teenaged brain is not fully developed.

Teen angst rooted in busy brain
Why teenagers can't see your point of view
The five ages of the brain: Adolescence
Teenagers fail to see the consequences
Teen brains show low motivation

Outlawing behavior that only endangers one's self is akin to forcing women into burquas, outlawing behavior that endangers others is not. Studies have shown that while you're yakking on your phone, you're more dangerous than a drunk driver. You would legalize drunk driving?

That said, yes, sometimes I'll answer the phone while driving, but I make it short (thirty seconds). Anybody stupid enough to TEXT while driving is IMO too stupid to be issued a license.

The problem with teenagers isn't the hormones, it's the inexperience and the fact that the teenaged brain is not fully developed.

Teen angst rooted in busy brain
Why teenagers can't see your point of view
The five ages of the brain: Adolescence
Teenagers fail to see the consequences
Teen brains show low motivation

Yes, "is". It's too early to say that we're climbing out of it just yet

Incorrect. The next sunspot cycle has already begun.

I'm talking about the real world. And no, Microsoft, Google and Apple are not methods, and Agile and Scrum are not ideologies.

You got that backward. Agile and Scume ARE methods and people worship Microsoft, Google and Apple like people worship the Yankees, Red Sox or even Catholicism.

Please read this fair summary of events and then reply back.

How about you give me a summary of what you are trying to say?

This paper (http://cogprints.org/678/0/ulcers_two.htm) explains exactly why it's difficult to follow the science and how there are frequently no clear cut answers. Also that it even with peer reviewed publications, the bacteria-ulcer hypothesis wasn't accepted for almost a decade.
FWIW most scientific papers are wrong: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915--most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong.html

These points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable
• Climate myths: We can't trust computer models
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

These points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable
• Climate myths: We can't trust computer models
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

These points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable
• Climate myths: We can't trust computer models
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

These points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable
• Climate myths: We can't trust computer models
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

These points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable
• Climate myths: We can't trust computer models
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

All of your points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live â" warming will be great
• Mars once had flowing rivers of water. There was warming, at some time there came a tipping point, and the planet became inhospitable. It is possible that the same could happen to Earth.

All of your points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live â" warming will be great
• Mars once had flowing rivers of water. There was warming, at some time there came a tipping point, and the planet became inhospitable. It is possible that the same could happen to Earth.

All of your points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live â" warming will be great
• Mars once had flowing rivers of water. There was warming, at some time there came a tipping point, and the planet became inhospitable. It is possible that the same could happen to Earth.

All of your points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live â" warming will be great
• Mars once had flowing rivers of water. There was warming, at some time there came a tipping point, and the planet became inhospitable. It is possible that the same could happen to Earth.

All of your points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live â" warming will be great
• Mars once had flowing rivers of water. There was warming, at some time there came a tipping point, and the planet became inhospitable. It is possible that the same could happen to Earth.

All of your points have been answered before:

• Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live â" warming will be great
• Mars once had flowing rivers of water. There was warming, at some time there came a tipping point, and the planet became inhospitable. It is possible that the same could happen to Earth.

All of your points have already been addressed many times:

• Most of the ardent skeptics now agree that the average temperature has increased, and may increase in the future. The view that there is no warming occurring is now held by only a small minority (afaik, there are no prominent scientists that claim warming has not and is not occurring).
• Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
• Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
• You are scared of CFL bulbs because they contain a small amount of mercury - are you also scared of thermometers?
• There are environmentalists who support nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and oil; it's not as radical an idea as you suggest. However, nuclear energy is not sustainable - world reserves are predicted to last a few hundred years. Assuming we can switch from oil/gas/coal to nuclear for our present needs, we still need to develop alternatives for the future.

All of your points have already been addressed many times:

• Most of the ardent skeptics now agree that the average temperature has increased, and may increase in the future. The view that there is no warming occurring is now held by only a small minority (afaik, there are no prominent scientists that claim warming has not and is not occurring).
• Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
• Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
• You are scared of CFL bulbs because they contain a small amount of mercury - are you also scared of thermometers?
• There are environmentalists who support nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and oil; it's not as radical an idea as you suggest. However, nuclear energy is not sustainable - world reserves are predicted to last a few hundred years. Assuming we can switch from oil/gas/coal to nuclear for our present needs, we still need to develop alternatives for the future.

All of your points have already been addressed many times:

• Most of the ardent skeptics now agree that the average temperature has increased, and may increase in the future. The view that there is no warming occurring is now held by only a small minority (afaik, there are no prominent scientists that claim warming has not and is not occurring).
• Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
• Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
• You are scared of CFL bulbs because they contain a small amount of mercury - are you also scared of thermometers?
• There are environmentalists who support nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and oil; it's not as radical an idea as you suggest. However, nuclear energy is not sustainable - world reserves are predicted to last a few hundred years. Assuming we can switch from oil/gas/coal to nuclear for our present needs, we still need to develop alternatives for the future.

All of your points have already been addressed many times:

• Most of the ardent skeptics now agree that the average temperature has increased, and may increase in the future. The view that there is no warming occurring is now held by only a small minority (afaik, there are no prominent scientists that claim warming has not and is not occurring).
• Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
• Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
• You are scared of CFL bulbs because they contain a small amount of mercury - are you also scared of thermometers?
• There are environmentalists who support nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and oil; it's not as radical an idea as you suggest. However, nuclear energy is not sustainable - world reserves are predicted to last a few hundred years. Assuming we can switch from oil/gas/coal to nuclear for our present needs, we still need to develop alternatives for the future.

All of your points have already been addressed many times:

• Most of the ardent skeptics now agree that the average temperature has increased, and may increase in the future. The view that there is no warming occurring is now held by only a small minority (afaik, there are no prominent scientists that claim warming has not and is not occurring).
• Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
• Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
• You are scared of CFL bulbs because they contain a small amount of mercury - are you also scared of thermometers?
• There are environmentalists who support nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and oil; it's not as radical an idea as you suggest. However, nuclear energy is not sustainable - world reserves are predicted to last a few hundred years. Assuming we can switch from oil/gas/coal to nuclear for our present needs, we still need to develop alternatives for the future.

All of your points have already been addressed many times:

• Most of the ardent skeptics now agree that the average temperature has increased, and may increase in the future. The view that there is no warming occurring is now held by only a small minority (afaik, there are no prominent scientists that claim warming has not and is not occurring).
• Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Climate myths: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
• Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
• You are scared of CFL bulbs because they contain a small amount of mercury - are you also scared of thermometers?
• There are environmentalists who support nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and oil; it's not as radical an idea as you suggest. However, nuclear energy is not sustainable - world reserves are predicted to last a few hundred years. Assuming we can switch from oil/gas/coal to nuclear for our present needs, we still need to develop alternatives for the future.