Certainly there's going to be more nuclear eventually, but it appears to have even more issues than wind, including cost (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/)
So the peer reviewers at the National Academy of Sciences are bad at math? This is very disturbing news.
By the way, the cost of wind power has been competitive with coal for nearly a decade (www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3772&method=full, among many others). And if you want to talk hair-brained schemes, then nuclear fission with thermal neutron energies of of thousands of degrees ranks right up there with the crazy.
Peer review may not catch all errors or outright fabrications, but reproducibility usually does. That's how those famous examples cited in the posting, and many others, were eventually caught and corrected. Scientists may be only human, but the repeatability and testability of the scientific method works and is one of the few cornerstones we have available for public debate on many issues like health and environment. There is relatively little bad science; there is a whole lot of bad political science (no offense, PS majors...).
If you read the NOAA data description and papers, you will find that the adjustments are due to carefully documented re-calibrations of the standard gases used as references by the measurement instruments.
More importantly, if you look at the difference graph linked in your comment, you will note that the typical correction is 0.2ppm and the largest correct is about 0.7ppm. This is insignificant compared to the 50ppm increase over the last 30 years at Mauna Loa.
It begs the question; why are you (and others in this thread) ranting so violently against a simple measurement? What possible benefit could NOAA scientists gain over your lives? The politicization of science here is making no sense...
According to industry information, standard flourescent tubes like the 40W T12 in your office ceiling contain 2-6 times more mercury than a compact fluorescent. Bulbs like these have been in use for almost 70 years, and there are now literally billions of tubes in use worldwide without any published evidence of widespread mercury poisioning from them (most of the environmental rise in mercury, such as affected the Japanese fishing industry, is from commercial chemical proccessing and power plants).
If this type of article raises awarness of mercury problems and leads to a recycling program as comprehensive as that for lead in car batteries, then it is a useful thing. If this article is another industry subsidized lobbyist attempt to smear 'environmentalists', then it is not helpful to the public debate at all. Unfortunately it is probably the later, since it chooses to cite the non-news incident of Ms. Bridges, which was first widely reported by the conservative pundits (NOT real news media) about a year ago.
And if you're going to try to make a valid argument 'against' global warming, avoid claiming that the climate change agenda is being advanced by environmentalists. That's a political argument, not a scientific one. I work in the atmospheric research community, and there are in fact very few environmentalists involved. There are, however, thousands of atmospherics chemists, physicists, geophysicists, geologists, glaciologists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, oceanographers, marine biologists, plant biologists and soil scientists whose work contributes to the big picture of climate change. In most cases these researchers are not focused on global warming in particular; it is most often the case that changes in the natural phenomena they are studying incidentally end up pointing to climate change caused by a man-made increase in global greenhouse gases.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly there's going to be more nuclear eventually, but it appears to have even more issues than wind, including cost (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/)
And more expensive than windmills (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/) to boot!
So the peer reviewers at the National Academy of Sciences are bad at math? This is very disturbing news. By the way, the cost of wind power has been competitive with coal for nearly a decade (www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3772&method=full, among many others). And if you want to talk hair-brained schemes, then nuclear fission with thermal neutron energies of of thousands of degrees ranks right up there with the crazy.
Peer review may not catch all errors or outright fabrications, but reproducibility usually does. That's how those famous examples cited in the posting, and many others, were eventually caught and corrected. Scientists may be only human, but the repeatability and testability of the scientific method works and is one of the few cornerstones we have available for public debate on many issues like health and environment. There is relatively little bad science; there is a whole lot of bad political science (no offense, PS majors...).
If you read the NOAA data description and papers, you will find that the adjustments are due to carefully documented re-calibrations of the standard gases used as references by the measurement instruments. More importantly, if you look at the difference graph linked in your comment, you will note that the typical correction is 0.2ppm and the largest correct is about 0.7ppm. This is insignificant compared to the 50ppm increase over the last 30 years at Mauna Loa. It begs the question; why are you (and others in this thread) ranting so violently against a simple measurement? What possible benefit could NOAA scientists gain over your lives? The politicization of science here is making no sense...
Support your right to arm bears!
According to industry information, standard flourescent tubes like the 40W T12 in your office ceiling contain 2-6 times more mercury than a compact fluorescent. Bulbs like these have been in use for almost 70 years, and there are now literally billions of tubes in use worldwide without any published evidence of widespread mercury poisioning from them (most of the environmental rise in mercury, such as affected the Japanese fishing industry, is from commercial chemical proccessing and power plants). If this type of article raises awarness of mercury problems and leads to a recycling program as comprehensive as that for lead in car batteries, then it is a useful thing. If this article is another industry subsidized lobbyist attempt to smear 'environmentalists', then it is not helpful to the public debate at all. Unfortunately it is probably the later, since it chooses to cite the non-news incident of Ms. Bridges, which was first widely reported by the conservative pundits (NOT real news media) about a year ago.
And if you're going to try to make a valid argument 'against' global warming, avoid claiming that the climate change agenda is being advanced by environmentalists. That's a political argument, not a scientific one. I work in the atmospheric research community, and there are in fact very few environmentalists involved. There are, however, thousands of atmospherics chemists, physicists, geophysicists, geologists, glaciologists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, oceanographers, marine biologists, plant biologists and soil scientists whose work contributes to the big picture of climate change. In most cases these researchers are not focused on global warming in particular; it is most often the case that changes in the natural phenomena they are studying incidentally end up pointing to climate change caused by a man-made increase in global greenhouse gases.