In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader “consensus” on a coming alien invasion. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions. Quite simply, there is no comparison.
Why Plants Can't Sequester Excess CO2 http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/why_plants_cant_sequester_excess_co2 Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production http://environment.newscientist.com...l-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
hmm..... Just to put a super fine point on it, the scientific consensus is that the climate has warmed. There is lots of speculation that folks believe that the trend is unstoppable, hence the hyperbole and the politicization of the topic. Science has no predictive crystal ball, and they will be the first to tell you that. So, why, assert that you can "know" something that the scientists themselves cannot tell you? Then answer is pretty simple, you fall for a conformance bias. You assume that when a "trustable" source "tells" you something you "believe" in, that they are supporting your perception. Ok, what if they are wrong? Or, more likely, what if they don't have all of the necessary variables quantified and are unable to actually provide a long term guide? Why do you assume that a group of folks who can't tell you what strength a Hurricane will hit land at can tell you with authority that 10 years from now will demonstrate x amount of real warming? I'll tell you. It's because it makes you believe in your own ability to say, "see....that... right there".... and get all indignant about it. Why is it, do you suppose, that if global warming is immediately dangerous that folks, like say Mr Obama (who has lectured us endlessly on how bad CO2 is, and how "sudden" sea level rise will be effected) still owns a 12+ $million dollar estate that sits, frankly well under even modest predictions of sea level rise? Al Gore, master of the barking, has a similar property in Malibu. Both fly endlessly on private aviation spewing more CO2 per trip than the average small town in a year. Both employing the worst in SUV caravans, and frankly enjoy some of the largest personal CO2 footprints on the planet, and yet folks STILL look to them for an answer. When folks rightly point out those inconsistencies, those hypocrisies, folks on the greenie movement scoff... Because I suspect that even they know what BS this Climate Change story is, and even they understand that it is really a power grab that they frankly support. It's the ultimate demonstrations of the cool for me, but not for thee strategy. Why do you suppose the UN is all in? The entire purpose of carbon taxation is to generate sufficient aid to developing nations so that they can catch up as quickly as possible to the rest of the world, which, duh, creates that much more emissions. It's laughable.
Didn't you hear about that scandal where they had to fudge the temperatures? Oh yeah, CLIMATEGATE! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
The latter link is bad. CO2 helps plants grow bigger and faster. Paper towels can't reproduce when you add water.
Climate Gate is a manufactured controversy.A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
Transatomic is no longer in business. They open-published their research and released all of their patents. https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...lear-reactor-plans-make-its-technology-public The viability of the WAMSR wasn't really verified by ORNL - in fact, it was an analysis by MIT that showed that spent fuel would be insufficient to sustain the fission reactions necessary to produce heat. Hence, no more WA for the WA MSR. So, like I said, not green.... For more on the MSR check this page out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor These designs were passed by a long long time ago simply because there are no good options for pump, piping, exchanger and even containment components. Fluoride salts are highly corrosive and one of the only materials able to contain them in non-nuclear chemical processing is stuff like Hastelloy and other high nickel content metals. See page 8 for an example of how challenging the metallurgy can be just with anhydrous and aqueous hydrofluoric acids here: https://www.eurofluor.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Eurofluor-GD04-STS90-public-version.pdf From the above Wikipedia page, One of Dr. Dewan's problems is that she got her Phd in nuclear engineering rather than material science / metallurgy. The MSR tech needs someone like Bill Coolidge to come up with some kinda stuff that will keep the dragon in the pipes.
Is it? Was it wrong for the East Anglia folks to destroy the historic records and have to recreate them from "memory"... Was it wrong for them to bully publications from publishing studies that didn't support their pet theory? You seem suddenly judgmental on a subject that it really looks like you know very little about.
The media have FAILED to bring the scientific message on climate change to US citizens. THAT is the problem. You can't claim that the media have gone too far unless you can show that they are somehow out in front of science on this issue. That's why you need to show something about the science before you moan about the media.
OF COURSE we will need to adapt. There is no way that we're going to cause this world to cool in the next 100 years. But, while we're all "adapting" how about we stop making it hotter? When we face a serious problem, we don't throw away all but one of our tools.
It was PURELY political. And, thats where your are remaining, too, as you go after the media when the issue is the science. Did you really expect the right wing politial operatives to clean up the internet of their purely political garbage?
Who are the "they" that you are thinking of? The US federal government? This AGW scam is playing out far beyond the US. It is backed by the UN, specifically the IPCC and its Swiss headquarters. France has a tax on SUVs these days that prices them completely beyond the means of anyone unable to afford a €20k carbon excise tax beginning this year. It's been at €12.5k since 2014. https://www.industryweek.com/the-ec...impose-22240-pollution-tax-on-suvs-and-trucks Is France passing that back out to folks as solar shingles, solar windows, transparent solar films? Transparent solar films? Give me a break - show me a link to buy this 3M product that supposedly was to go on market back in 2012..... https://www.computerworld.com/artic...ns-windows-into-transparent-solar-panels.html FFS, the US already pays a carbon tax, been there for a long long time: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10 Supposedly, this tax was to be used to support road maintenance and development. There are hundreds if not thousands of bridges in the US that are not up to code. I-10 at Lake Charles, LA has a rating of something like 3 out of 100. My company actually issued a safety advisory to avoid using it, by taking a 20-40 minute diversion using the newly constructed bridge on the south 210 route. Someone then sent a notice to Louisiana Dept. of Transportation. Well, the LA DoT hit back hard, and the safety advisory was retracted. Sorry, the I-10 Lake Charles bridge is still most likely as bad as the National Bridge Survey says it is. And you support carbon taxes? Because the government will give you non-existent transparent 3M films and Tesla batteries for your house? And because of security and terrorists? Dyamn dogg.... And let's not forget UV bullets for when the Vamps come after us?
Here is video of Michael Crichton as the lead lecturer at an anti-consensus science conference on refuting the religious nature of AGW. Note, Mike C doesn't work for Koch, ExxonMobil, or the UN. He is as independent as it gets and has all of the classes required to have earned an MD. That is a **** load of classes. It is actually the pinnacle of the US education hierarchy. Mike was fighting cancer when he did this conference. There are several other media items available that Mike C hosts in refuting the so called consensus science of AGW. Let the Davos krew fly their private jets and lead the initiative for carbon taxes? No, I think not for me. €20k might be chump change for them, but it is a world of pain for me.
NO. Michale C. is NOT the pinnacle of anything - except perhaps fiction writing. "Taking classes" can not possibly make him the pinnacle of anything related to science. Scientists, those with PhDs, do NOT get to be PhDs by taking classes. They get there by proving mastery and demonstrating the ability to move forward the world wide understanding of how this universe works through the use of methods of science. Chrighton never came CLOSE to that. He does not represet science in any way. He certainly does not represent climatology. He died 12 years ago, so you're trying to ignore the last 12 years of progress on climatology - a subject that is NOT related to medicine. Beyond that, he is ONE individual.
