Actually, as a climate skeptic, I've been saying for years that we should all focus on innovative nuclear technologies. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. Cheap, safe & clean nuclear energy is something that could benefit everybody, regardless of beliefs. I don't understand why global warming believers aren't pushing super hard for this. Meanwhile, 80 billion is spent on global warming programs and fusion programs get their funding cut. It doesn't make sense.
I should add that, sadly, this episode will hurt science in general. Maybe that's a good thing. Scientists are just people. It's wrong to put them on a pedestal.
That 97% number is a total myth. It's based on two studies so obviously bogus that I am surprised anyone would continue to even mention them. You should be embarrassed by these papers and the attention they received.
The fact remains: climate models predicted increased surface temperatures directly tied to increased CO2. But it has not warmed in the last 17 years. The climate scare is over. Please move on. Your sides stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything remotely critical, no matter how true, will continue to eat away at your credibility.
Lets all focus on innovative nuclear projects that would benefit everybody. The fact remains, fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. (Why aren't people concerned about CO2 pushing hard for this?)
The Cook papers criteria: "Endorsement levels 1-3 each endorse anthropogenic factors as causing 50+% of recent warming."
The following statements from abstracts were taken to mean that the papers authors agreed with the criterea, that anthropogenic factors as causing 50+% of warming:
This paper reviews some of the adverse effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming. because the atmospheric effects of global warming are less understood, public health problems that could be intensified by climate change are assessed qualitatively.
There have been numerous proposals for immediate cutbacks in CO2 emissions. Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate. This paper provides a decision tree analysis of the problem.
As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda, developing nations are faced with a major question: how to confront these environmental problems and simultaneously address a number of more pressing developmental imperatives?
Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flooded rice.
Desirable features include ethanol’s fuel properties as well as benefits with respect to urban air quality, global climate change, balance of trade, and energy security.
Examines the possibility of global climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The problem can be ameliorated by reducing fossil fuel consumption through conservation and expanded use of nuclear and solar power.
The information presented should help prepare electric utilities to address future public concerns and the related regulatory pressures regarding the utility’s role in carbon-dioxide proliferation and global warming
Previous studies suggest that the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect could raise sea level 50 to 200 cm (2 to 7 ft) in the next century. This article presents the first nationwide assessment of the primary impacts of such a rise on the United States
The paper presents a methodology for comparing the cost-effectiveness of different technical options for the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions
While considerable global warming uncertainties remain, limiting the emission of the greenhouse gas, CO2 at minimum cost is a growing social concern.
An analysis of data pertaining to the period 1861–1986 reveals that (1) a 1 C rise in the mean annual air temperature of the British Isles has historically been associated with a 35% drop in the percentage of days that the United Kingdom has experienced cyclonic flow, and (2) a 2 C increase in the mean annual air temperature over the sea to the north has typically been matched by a 60% drop in the percentage of days that the isles have experienced cyclonic flow originating from that source region. These findings raise significant questions about the oft-reported claim that CO2-induced global warming will lead to an increase in world storminess.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a bogus study. If something of that... ahem... quality came out from a oil funded think tank you guys would be all over it. It seems that anything that agrees with global warming is uncritically accepted by the same people who see themselves as "pro-science".
Wow. I just noticed your tagline. I wrote my first blog article last night and it included this line: "I think the majority are average thinkers by definition, and crowds tend to be stupider than individuals."
You just don't get it. We predicted warming that was directly tied to increases in CO2. But it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years, despite massive increases in CO2. Obviously global warming is to blame. Global warming is still happening, we just can't see it. Do you deny the lack of warming? Some have predicted that global warming could lead to another ice age. We've got our bases covered. No matter what happens, global warming is to blame. Stop fighting it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, as a climate skeptic, I've been saying for years that we should all focus on innovative nuclear technologies. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. Cheap, safe & clean nuclear energy is something that could benefit everybody, regardless of beliefs. I don't understand why global warming believers aren't pushing super hard for this. Meanwhile, 80 billion is spent on global warming programs and fusion programs get their funding cut. It doesn't make sense.
I should add that, sadly, this episode will hurt science in general. Maybe that's a good thing. Scientists are just people. It's wrong to put them on a pedestal.
That 97% number is a total myth. It's based on two studies so obviously bogus that I am surprised anyone would continue to even mention them. You should be embarrassed by these papers and the attention they received.
The fact remains: climate models predicted increased surface temperatures directly tied to increased CO2. But it has not warmed in the last 17 years. The climate scare is over. Please move on. Your sides stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything remotely critical, no matter how true, will continue to eat away at your credibility.
Lets all focus on innovative nuclear projects that would benefit everybody. The fact remains, fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. (Why aren't people concerned about CO2 pushing hard for this?)
The Cook papers criteria: "Endorsement levels 1-3 each endorse anthropogenic factors as causing 50+% of recent warming."
The following statements from abstracts were taken to mean that the papers authors agreed with the criterea, that anthropogenic factors as causing 50+% of warming:
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a bogus study. If something of that... ahem... quality came out from a oil funded think tank you guys would be all over it. It seems that anything that agrees with global warming is uncritically accepted by the same people who see themselves as "pro-science".
Wow. I just noticed your tagline. I wrote my first blog article last night and it included this line: "I think the majority are average thinkers by definition, and crowds tend to be stupider than individuals."
You just don't get it. We predicted warming that was directly tied to increases in CO2. But it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years, despite massive increases in CO2. Obviously global warming is to blame. Global warming is still happening, we just can't see it. Do you deny the lack of warming? Some have predicted that global warming could lead to another ice age. We've got our bases covered. No matter what happens, global warming is to blame. Stop fighting it.