US, British science academies: Climate change is real

Feb 27, 2014
A woman walks as smoke rises from the stacks of a thermal power station in Pernik, Bulgaria, on January 28, 2014

US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.

The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.

"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.

"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."

The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.

But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.

Amid a bitter winter in several parts of the world, the academies stressed that global warming is a "long-term trend" and that day-to-day weather can still be unusually cold or warm.

Climate change is already widely accepted by scientists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-backed group of scientists, said in a report in September that it was more certain than ever that humans were causing rising temperatures and that heat waves, droughts and other threats would intensify.

But there has also been a backlash, including in the United States where industry-friendly conservative lawmakers have questioned the science as they oppose laws to curb carbon emissions blamed for climate change.

A separate study released in Washington by the Global Legislators Organisation, a London-based global group of lawmakers focused on development, found that legislation was "progressing at a rapid rate" around the world. But it also pointed to reversals, including efforts by Australia's new conservative government to roll back a carbon tax.

The group said national legislation was vital to reaching a UN-backed goal of sealing a new treaty on at a 2015 meeting in Paris. The report found that 61 out of 66 countries studied had passed laws to promote clean energy.

Explore further: Science academies explain global warming reality

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Science academies explain global warming reality

Feb 27, 2014

(AP)—Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world's leading scientific organizations.

Global warming's record-setting pace

Feb 17, 2014

The pace of global warming over the last century has been about twice as rapid over land than over the oceans and will continue to be more dramatic going forward if emissions are not curbed. According to ...

2013 sixth hottest year, UN says (Update)

Feb 05, 2014

Last year tied for the sixth hottest on record, confirming that Earth's climate system is in the grip of warming that will affect generations to come, the UN's weather agency said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Avoiding ecosystem collapse

9 hours ago

From coral reefs to prairie grasslands, some of the world's most iconic habitats are susceptible to sudden collapse due to seemingly minor events. A classic example: the decimation of kelp forests when a ...

Global warming cynics unmoved by extreme weather

9 hours ago

What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real? Surely, many scientists believe, enough droughts, floods and heat waves will begin to change minds.

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freeiam
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 27, 2014
Repetition is an important tool for religions.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (20) Feb 27, 2014
Repetition is an important tool for religions.
Gullibility is an important prerequisite for deniers.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Feb 27, 2014
Of course climate change is real.
12000 years ago most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in ice.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (23) Feb 27, 2014
"These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. "
"Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, ..."
http://www.michae...ous.html
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Feb 27, 2014
"

This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we're "ravaging the planet"—and we're only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.

That brings us to where we are today. The establishment's approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one."

"The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his idea were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. " Carl Sagan.
http://thefederal...warming/
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2014
"

This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we're "ravaging the planet"—and we're only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.

That brings us to where we are today. The establishment's approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one."

"The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his idea were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. " Carl Sagan.
http://thefederal...warming/

Sagan included...
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 27, 2014
It's one thing to demonstrate that climate is changing massively with unnatural swiftness, it's another to provide the reason.
It's not "fossil fuels", it's the dumping of weather modification chemicals into the air from high flying jets leaving long, non dissipating, vapor lanes, what's come to be called "chemtrails".
Chemtrailing began in the 1950's, when jets started to be used widely. It cause tornado number to go from a constant 180 a year to seven or more times that number now. It produced previously unknown species of clouds. In 1997, the atmosphere appears to have become saturated so new additions precipitated out forming visible trails. Since that time, all the accepted signs of climate change have occurred with breakneck speed, although the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has not changed more than a few percent.
Incidentally, to avoid further rejoinders such as from the ilk of ryggesogn2, perhaps it should be called "accelerated climate change".
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2014
Chemtrailing began in the 1950's, when jets started to be used widely. It cause tornado number to go from a constant 180 a year to seven or more times that number now

@julianpenrod
please provide the study/empirical data that supports this assertion, as well as shows the link between the clouds and the tornado's
the atmosphere appears to have become saturated so new additions precipitated out forming visible trails. Since that time, all the accepted signs of climate change have occurred with breakneck speed

is there a scientific study showing this to be a CAUSE, and not just an EFFECT of something else?

Please provide peer reviewed, scientific, empirical data to back up your claims, otherwise they are nothing better than conjectures
Bonia
Feb 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
A good point Zephyr, and yet I see two things this is going to lead towards; less overall production of CO2, and more of an impetus towards off-world exploration and mining.

I know that you want your pet idea of cold fusion to be taken up, but I really think you are beating a dead horse with that one. I know you don't agree, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise, and I really wish it was a plausible technology. The problem is, so far, it has shown itself not to be; and worse, it has shown itself to be the purview of those whose reputations for honestly are somewhat tarnished.

There are no easy answers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2014
a clear consensus
I guess this depends greatly on the definition of 'clear' that youre willing to accept.

"The truth, and this is frustrating for policy-makers," declared John Christy in Nature four years ago, "is that scientists' ignorance of the climate system is enormous." Now he and fellow climate scientist Richard McNider have argued in the Wall Street Journal that widespread, perverse disregard of gross climate-modeling deficiencies is leading to acceptance of huge overestimates of warming, to needless regulation, to social harm, and to a clear need to invert common belief about climate-science legitimacy."

"A co-founder of Greenpeace... Patrick Moore... told members of the Senate... environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics... "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming... over the past 100 years," "
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
pet idea of cold fusion... beating a dead horse with that one.... I really wish it was a plausible technology... it has shown itself not to be;... whose reputations for honestly are somewhat tarnished
Ignorance is bliss. Why are you willing to repeat conclusions you reached a decade ago? Lewis Larsen and Kitco have stellar reputations.

"article published on the Kitco Tech Metals Insider page about Lattice Energy LLC, in which the company's president and CEO, Lewis Larsen discusses his company and thoughts about LENR... one of the theoreticians behind the Widom-Larsen theory, and he believes that this theoretical framework is key to being able to produce reliable prototype devices which he plans to develop into commercial products through Lattice Energy."

Perhaps you would benefit from attending 'the upcoming 2014 Cold Fusion [Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction] Colloquium at MIT.' Another institution with a stellar rep.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
I guess this depends greatly on the definition of 'clear' that youre willing to accept.
For me, "a clear consensus" (this is what you are talking about right?) is one in which an agreement of more than 85% of experts in the field agree. "Clear" in this case denotes a level higher than majority, but not necessarily unanimity.

And for you?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2014
There was a clear consensus on eugenics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
more than 85% of experts in the field agree
I dont know this sounds a little arbitrary to me. What if this majority of your 'consensus' is dominated by scientists whose 'ignorance of the climate system is enormous' and who share a 'widespread, perverse disregard of gross climate-modeling deficiencies' as you and I have been discussing in recent threads?

A consensus of priests believe that jesus is god but that dont make it so.
There was a clear consensus on eugenics.
There was a clear consensus among you xians on slavery as well. Quit changing the subject.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
Ignorance is bliss. Why are you willing to repeat conclusions you reached a decade ago?
So is fantasy. What conclusions did I reach?

Lewis Larsen and Kitco have stellar reputations.
What about Allan Widom, shouldn't he get some credit? I think there are stark differences between the Widom-Larsen LENR work and the "cold fusion" being trumpeted by Zephyr.

I hope it works. Post here when you see some proof.

"Perhaps you would benefit from attending 'the upcoming 2014 Cold Fusion [Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction] Colloquium at MIT.' Another institution with a stellar rep.
Perhaps I would.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2014
There was a clear consensus on eugenics.
No, there wasn't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
What about Allan Widom, shouldn't he get some credit? I think there are stark differences between the Widom-Larsen LENR work and the "cold fusion" being trumpeted by Zephyr.
Thats BECAUSE you dont know very much at all about whats been happening in the field. Rossis e-cat may very well be explained by w-l theory. At any event it appears a lot more genuine than it did even a year ago.

As published in forbes:

"Published on May 16, the paper titled "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device" would appear to deliver what we wanted."
http://www.forbes...ter-all/

-I dont believe forbes rep suffered any from the article.

"Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources." (from the independent test paper)
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2014
I dont know this sounds a little arbitrary to me.
And so it is.
What if this majority of your 'consensus' is dominated by scientists whose 'ignorance of the climate system is enormous' and who share a 'widespread, perverse disregard of gross climate-modeling deficiencies' as you and I have been discussing in recent threads?
The opinion of one man, regardless of his credentials, does not affect a consensus. Regardless, certainly, if it could be shown that the "majority" of scientists who are in consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human produced CO2 are ignorant of the climate system, than their conclusions should be reviewed. A red herring however; there is no such majority, and in fact, no support for that statement, period.

Furthermore, 97% of the scientists who are quoted as suggesting that global warming is not occurring are not climate scientists. So who do we believe, those who are in the field, or those looking at it from outside?

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
I hope it works. Post here when you see some proof.
Im sure youll hear about it. In the nonce, act like a scientist (non-AGW) and refrain from drawing conclusions until you have convincing evidence one way or the other.
The opinion of one man, regardless of his credentials, does not affect a consensus
Depends on whether he is right or not. Say did you hear about how pine needles affect climate? AGW scientists should read more physorg I think.
97% of the scientists who are quoted as suggesting that global warming is not occurring are not climate scientists
And how many within your so-called consensus are bonafide climate scientists? Didnt I read that this was also an embarrassing statistic?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
Thats BECAUSE you dont know very much at all about whats been happening in the field. Rossis e-cat may very well be explained by w-l theory. At any event it appears a lot more genuine than it did even a year ago.
We'll see. I keep reading about experiments that are "coming". Of course, I've been reading that for years. Talk is cheap.

I hope you're right. I have been hoping that since 1990 or so. So far, lot's of hype, very little substance.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
We'll see. I keep reading about experiments that are "coming". Of course, I've been reading that for years. Talk is cheap
The time between your posts was not enough to actually read the forbes article about such independent tests and follow the link to the original paper. Ergo you choose to stay stupid because it is easier to pontificate that way I assume.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2014
There was a clear consensus on epicycles...
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2014
Im sure youll hear about it.
I doubt it.
In the nonce, act like a scientist (non-AGW) and refrain from drawing conclusions until you have convincing evidence one way or the other.
"Non AGW"?

I will draw whatever conclusion I deem fit, given the evidence and the science behind that evidence. There has been no proof given (what so ever!) that non-muon catalyzed fusion can occur, and, to date, Widom-Larsen LENR theory has no scientific proof and less scientific credibility. Dream about it all you want, but don't confuse your desire with scientific credibility.

The Thunderbolts Project held a conference too. Do you think that gives them more credibility?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
And statistical analysis is an art isnt it?

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

"The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model." FORBES 2/13/2013

-Hmmmmmm. 36% vs 97%. 'Was ist los mit mein rudder??' As I always say it pays to check the very latest data.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
The time between your posts was not enough to actually read the forbes article about such independent tests and follow the link to the original paper. Ergo you choose to stay stupid because it is easier to pontificate that way I assume.


That you assume you are the only one to have seen that article, prior to this discussion, is hubris. That you choose to degenerate to insults speaks to your intelligence, not mine.

Still not proof. Talk is (still) cheap.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
And now resorting to quote mining. Pulling out al the stops today are you?

Ok: "...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes". (Doran 2009).

"Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem"

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
Widom-Larsen LENR theory has no scientific proof and less scientific credibility
-And yet it was good enough for NASA to apply for 2 US patents.

"NASA's patent application says, "Once established, SPP [surface plasmon polariton] resonance will be self-sustaining so that large power output-to-input ratios will be possible from [the] device." This shows that the art embodied in this patent application is aimed toward securing intellectual property rights on LENR heat production."

-You are really at a disadvantage here without up-to-date knowledge of the field.
you assume you are the only one to have seen that article
No, your statement
I keep reading about experiments that are "coming"
-means you failed to read about just such experiments. You IGNORED evidence.
That you choose to degenerate to insults speaks to your intelligence, not mine
IGNORING evidence presented to you by fellow posters is insulting in a passive-aggressive (meely) sort of way yes?
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
"The scientific consensus on AGW is supported by the UK's Royal Society, The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and many other scientific groups. It arises, not from any one paper, but from a vast mountain of accumulated, peer-reviewed research and associated evidence." - John R. Mashey
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2014
And yet it was good enough for NASA to apply for 2 US patents.
And that means what in your mind? Anyone can apply for a patent for anything.
You are really at a disadvantage here without up-to-date knowledge of the field.
There is no "field". There are a handful of people (some of them are even scientists) trying desperately to bring forward a technology that, so far, has almost no evidence to support it.
means you failed to read about just such experiments. You IGNORED evidence.
I "ignored" nothing. I find the "evidence" suspect and wanting; in fact, it is not evidence at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
And now resorting to quote mining. Pulling out al the stops today are you?
Ahahaahaaa when somebody doesnt like legitimate references they use the buzzword 'quote-mining' GOOGLE the excerpt to read the original FORBES article.
long-term climate processes". (Doran 2009).
Your paper is out of date. More from the FORBES article:

"Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis..."
http://www.forbes...-crisis/

-Im not going to exhume the whole article. You ought to read it for yourself.
I "ignored" nothing. I find the "evidence" suspect and wanting
But you are not NASA are you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
I "ignored" nothing. I find the "evidence" suspect and wanting; in fact, it is not evidence at all
How would you know? You refuse to look. Luckily scientists at NASA, MIT, the Navy, the independent ecat testers, and many many others all decided to look. And they were very encouraged by what they saw.
There is no "field". There are a handful of people (some of them are even scientists) trying desperately
AGAIN you think your empty opinions are facts. Theyre not.

Heres a long list of entities involved in LENR. Note mitsubishi, stanford, and toyota.
http://www.e-catw...esearch/
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2014
Really Ghost, James Taylor of Forbes? Can you maybe pick someone just a wee tad less biased? "Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands." "(the paper) is consistent with our thesis that ideological conflicts result in refusal to accept science that contradicts one's overvalued ideas or personal interests...The authors weren't attempting to validate the consensus with this study, but rather were trying to understand how scientists working in industry justify their position on global warming, as they often reject the consensus view of climate science. When a true cross-section of climate scientists is sampled, agreement with consensus is found among about 90% of scientists and 97% of those publishing in the field..." Cherry picking data, seems to be a familiar theme.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
There is no "field"
Re the MIT event:

The Colloquium is sponsored by Jet Energy (led by Mitchell Swartz) and the purpose of the meeting is described as follows:

"Our goal is to increase public cooperation and excellence of science and engineering among colleagues and improved public awareness of the development of this important FIELD."

-Courses in this FIELD are being offered at major universities including MIT and MU
http://iccf18.res...ials.php
Cherry-picking
-Thats like 'quote-mining' isnt it? I laugh at your meely buzzwords haha.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
How would you know? You refuse to look.
I have so looked Ghost, try to understand what I am typing here: I would like to see this technology work! I follow every bit of news regarding it, and I was once an enthusiastic supporter.

But so far, there is no evidence that it works! DO YOU GET THAT? I am SLIGHTLY encouraged by the demonstration, but I am highly skeptical of their claims of a breakthrough, as it was a staged demonstration by the very persons that most want to profit from it.

I hope I am wrong, but I have been watching this for a long time and I am not seeing anything in the way of evidence that is strong enough to pass the sniff test. We'll see =, and I am open to the idea.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
But so far, there is no evidence that it works! DO YOU GET THAT?
I get that you refuse to accept evidence you do not like.

"Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

-Of course the apparatus was set up by rossi and staff. Youll note the white hot cylinder in the FORBES photo. These things are DANGEROUS.

"Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted," Bushnell [NASA scientist] writes, "indicating when the conditions are right prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released."
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
Courses in this FIELD are being offered at major universities including MIT and MU
A one day course is what you come up with? Hahaha a field requiring a one day course, that's great! Tell you what, how about you link to an undergraduate course somewhere.

I put the word "field" into quotations for a reason Ghost.

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
I get that you refuse to accept evidence you do not like.
No, I refuse to accept evidence that is tainted.
"Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted," Bushnell [NASA scientist] writes, "indicating when the conditions are right prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released."
"Of course, chemical reactions can blow things up and melt glass too. There's no reason to conclude nuclear reactions were responsible. And it certainly isn't publishable proof of cold fusion. Considering that most of these experiments involve hydrogen gas and electricity, it's not at all surprising that labs go up in flames on occasion."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
No, I refuse to accept evidence that is tainted.
But you accept that AGW bullshit and that is obviously tainted/incomplete/politically motivated. You only think it is tainted because biased individuals tell you that is, and you believe them because that is what you WANT to believe.

The scientists who were actually involved in the tests say they were not tainted, and that the results were genuine and undeniable.

Something is amiss here magg. You choose to draw conclusions despite the presence of credible evidence.
Hahaha a field requiring a one day course, that's great! Tell you what, how about you link to an undergraduate course somewhere.
Whats wrong with one day courses?
http://student.mi...A61.html
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
But you accept that AGW bullshit and that is obviously tainted/incomplete/politically motivated.
Ah, your real motivation. The science behind "AGW" is robust, replicatable, multi-disciplinary and observed. Your perceptions of conspiracy taint your neutrality.
Something is amiss here magg.
Yep, your inability to see beyond your prejudices.
Whats wrong with one day courses?
http://student.mi...A61.html
Nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
There's no reason to conclude nuclear reactions were responsible
-only that it was a reputable NASA scientist making the claim, and your mined quote was from someone named 'Buzz Skyline'.
The science behind "AGW" is robust, replicatable, multi-disciplinary and observed. Your perceptions of conspiracy taint your neutrality.
Noooo my perception was from the articles and scientists I posted above. Dont pretend you didnt read them or that theyre not there. 36%. Gross model errors.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014

Noooo my perception was from the articles and scientists I posted above. Dont pretend you didnt read them or that theyre not there. 36%. Gross model errors.
That you are unable to comprehend the difference between cherry-picked data and science is becoming apparent.

Your own cite (which is an opinion piece by a known denier) has been shown to be the result of a survey of Alberta based, oilfield industry employed workers, and was not even intended to discuss "consensus" by any definition. It was a survey of oilfield workers and scientists in Alberta with the intent to determine how they equate their views of global warming with the consensus view of the rest of scientists in the world.

Your cape of reasonable skepticism is slipping Ghost, might want to retrench before we continue.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
One last comment to you Ghost - it is about the word "disconnect". You are on a site that, as I write this, has 9 separate articles discussing various aspects of global warming, covering disciplines from climate research to oceanography, today alone. You are arguing here about one article on LENR or cold fusion that appeared some 9 months ago.

Yet you take the stand that cold fusion is a solid and accepted idea whereas global warming is "obviously tainted/incomplete/politically motivated."

To say that there is a disconnect between your views of what is credible and what is not and what actually IS credible and what is not, is an understatement.

Prejudice indeed!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
That you are unable to comprehend the difference between cherry-picked data and science is becoming apparent
?? "only that it was a reputable NASA scientist making the claim, and your mined quote was from someone named 'Buzz Skyline'"
the result of a survey of Alberta based, oilfield industry employed workers
What, this?

"Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis..."

-Your implication that this group is more biased is simply not true.

"Concerning unbiasedness, they are convinced to have sufficient professional independence to properly consider climate change science"

-And the paper gives sufficient reason to believe this is true.
http://oss.sagepu...477.full
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
Yet you take the stand that cold fusion is a solid and accepted idea whereas global warming is "obviously tainted/incomplete/politically motivated."
What does LENR have to do with AGW? I think you are confused.

No, it only takes a few credible articles about significant gaps in AGW models, as well as a few credible experts who say that these models are significantly FLAWED, to convince me that AGW is "obviously tainted/incomplete/politically motivated" to one degree or another.

And these gaps seem to appear with dependable frequency. The models as a result are becoming less believable, not more. I think that if you werent so dependent on those righteous opinions you formed years ago, you could recognize this accelerating collapse.

Paradigms are made to be broken.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2014
Repetition is an important tool for religions.
Gullibility is an important prerequisite for deniers.

Stupidity is the only requirement for AGW Cult membership.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2014
science is becoming apparent
?? "only that it was a reputable NASA scientist making the claim, and your mined quote was from someone named 'Buzz Skyline'"
Hilarious! The quote was true, regardless of who said it, something you have trouble understanding. For what its worth, Buzz SKyline is physicist James Riordon.
We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis..."
Not in that study. You should try reading it.
Your implication that this group is more biased is simply not true.
Of course it is, the study was designed that way. Can you read?
And the paper gives sufficient reason to believe this is true.
Try reading it.

Wow Ghost, I apologize, I thought you were decent. You're just a tool, a gullible fool with a conspiracy to pander. You're too caught up in your own fantasies to even understand what you link to. Shame.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2014
What does LENR have to do with AGW? I think you are confused.
Nothing, I was discussing how gullible and uncritical you are. You're just too dense to understand that.
think that if you werent so dependent on those righteous opinions you formed years ago, you could recognize this accelerating collapse
Righteous opinions! LOL! I think that you are so caught up in being a buffoon you've lost all sense of reality. Should jump into that bunker with rygg.

I'm done with you. Just another dummy lost in denierville. Good luck with that cold fusion thing you have no idea about.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2014
The quote was true, regardless of who said it, something you have trouble understanding. For what its worth, Buzz SKyline is physicist James Riordon.
How do you know this? This is riordon:
http://www.aps.or...rdon.cfm

-This is buzz skyline:
https://www.blogg...22062681

-And regarding buzzes idle speculations re LENR accidents it appears he hasnt actually examined these incidents in depth. The NASA scientists on the other hand have, because they are the ones who have applied for the LENR patents.
Try reading it.
I did.
You're just a tool, a gullible fool with a conspiracy to pander. You're too caught up in your own fantasies
Not mine sir but those of respected and distinguished people from NASA, MIT, Stanford, MU, the navy, forbes, and greenpeace expatriots to name a few but certainly not all. Tool... Gullible ... Fool ... Conspiracy... Pander... Buffoon... Dummy... So sad to see you degenerate. LOL
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2014
How do you know this? This is riordon:
Think it through....slowly.....you can get it.
And regarding buzzes idle speculations re LENR accidents it appears he hasnt actually examined these incidents in depth.
Doesn't need much examination.
The NASA scientists on the other hand have, because they are the ones who have applied for the LENR patents.
Talk about idle speculation.
I did.
Then you should take a course on word comprehension.
Not mine sir but those of respected and distinguished people from NASA, MIT, Stanford, MU, the navy...snip....to name a few but certainly not all
Actually, these groups all agree global warming is happening.

Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2014
Tool... Gullible ... Fool ... Conspiracy... Pander... Buffoon... Dummy... So sad to see you degenerate. LOL


Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
― Sarah Cook

THE MOST difficult type of persons to deal with are those people who would argue with you but would not listen very well to your arguments and would go on blowing up little statements you make, dragging the discussion into a whole new field that is unrelated to the original subject matter.
-Ariel Lalison
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2014
Think it through....slowly.....you can get it
Sorry... you... havent... offered... any... indication... that... one... is ...the... other.

Riordon is a pr man who apparently crashed out in the lab:

"... it turned out that I'd had the counter turned to the most sensitive scale, and when I adjusted it properly I found that I had been exposed to relatively little radiation."

-While Dennis Bushnell is chief scientist of NASA Langley and a mechanical engineer by training. This is the gentleman you accuse of idle speculation.

"In 2008, Bushnell recognized the Widom-Larsen LENR theory as a viable theory to explain LENRs, and Bushnell has written about the theory accurately since then... "The theory appears to explain nearly all the various and often variegated experimental observations.""

-Bushnell is eminently qualified to assess LENR experiments and accidents. Your pr man is somewhat less so.

"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." Shaw

-or does pr.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
Not mine sir but those of respected and distinguished people from NASA, MIT, Stanford, MU, the navy
Actually, these groups all agree global warming is happening
How on earth do you categorize all these entities as homogenous 'groups' capable of one concerted opinion on a subject?

"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is sick of being labeled a global warming 'denier' by politicians and environmentalists... "Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature... It's time to push back."

"A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN's climate bureaucracy... "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence," says Dr. Richard Lindzen"

"Dr. Thomas Moore, at Stanford's Hoover Institution... "While [kyoto] would have cost the United States around 3 percent of its GDP, or $300 billion, it would have had a negligible effect on slowing climate change.""
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
"A few months ago, the University of Missouri-Columbia proudly announced that one of its professors would share the Nobel Peace Prize... The professor, Tony Lupo, is an associate professor of atmospheric science in the School of Natural Resources. He also happens to be a global-warming skeptic"

"[Fred] Singer argues there is no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind... From 1950 to 1953, he was attached to the U.S. Embassy in London as a scientific liaison officer with the Office of Naval Research... " [well seriously the navy is pretty much lined up behind one rear-admiral who happens to LIKE the idea of an ice-free arctic]

-But anyways from my last 2 posts its pretty clear you were just plain LYING about these 'groups' 'agreeing that global warming is happening.'
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2014
NASA's position: http://climate.na...evidence

These "groups" ALL agree that global warming is occurring. That you can point to one or two dissenting voices is cherry picking. You frankly have no idea what you are arguing about.

Cherry picking is misrepresentation. Can you define misrepresentation?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2014
Yes, global warming has been occurring for thousands of years.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2014
Try that post again:

Nasa's position: http://climate.na...evidence
Stanford's position: https://pangea.st...echange/
MIT's Position: http://globalchan...ions/990

A little bit about Lindzen: http://www.realcl...ewsweek/ & http://thinkprogr...-denier/ Yes, a blog, but it highlights how poor his position is.

Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2014
This is the gentleman you accuse of idle speculation.
Um, no, it's that comprehension thing again (why is comprehension such an issue among most deniers? Oh, of course, wilful blindness!) I was accusing you of idle speculation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
These "groups" ALL agree that global warming is occurring... cherry picking.
So I suppose by the same logic you can declare that the USA as a 'group' agrees that AGW is real because:

"President Obama said the debate over climate change is settled during his State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening... "But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."
Stanfords position
Uh no that is a workshop for grade school teachers by a few faculty members.
MITs position
Uh no that is a single paper by a few faculty members.
Cherry picking is misrepresentation. Can you define misrepresentation?
Presenting workshops and papers as if they represent the official stance of entire universities is just plain lying. Can you define just plain lying?

I've shown you public statements by members of all these groups against AGW. They did not presume to be speaking for their entire 'group'. If they did they would have been LYING, as you are attempting to do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
Here is a 'team' which is part of your MIT 'group' who tell us "global warming part of natural cycle"
http://onswipe.co...47507c81

Hmmm looks like the chain of command has broken down or something.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
This is the gentleman you accuse of idle speculation.
Um, no, it's that comprehension thing again
Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between LENR and AGW. My comment was against your lab klutz who was obviously opining on lab explosions without knowing specifics.
(why is comprehension such an issue among most deniers? Oh, of course, wilful blindness!)
-And so.... since you are an LENR denier you have correctly tagged your own self with wilful (sic) blindness.

This is what is known as a Freudian slip.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2014
Here is a 'team' which is part of your MIT 'group' who tell us "global warming part of natural cycle"
http://onswipe.co...47507c81

Hmmm looks like the chain of command has broken down or something.
A link to a blog article discussing Mars? Hmmmm, looks like more attempts at misrepresentation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
Here is a 'team' which is part of your MIT 'group' who tell us "global warming part of natural cycle"
http://onswipe.co...47507c81

Hmmm looks like the chain of command has broken down or something.
A link to a blog article discussing Mars? Hmmmm, looks like more attempts at misrepresentation.
Anybody who clicks on the link can see by the title that it's about natural warming and methane here on earth, based on work by rigby and prinn at MIT.

You're losing control Magnus.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2014
So I suppose by the same logic you can declare that the USA as a 'group' agrees that AGW is real because
The USA as a group? The US government has made its position clear. That you don't like that position means sweet twat.
I've shown you public statements by members of all these groups against AGW.
No, you have cherry picked the opinions of a handful of dissenters and presented it as representative of the whole.
Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between LENR and AGW. My comment was against your lab klutz who was obviously opining on lab explosions without knowing specifics.
Obfuscation.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2014
Anybody who clicks on the link can see by the title that it's about natural warming and methane here on earth, based on work by rigby and prinn at MIT.
The title from the link: "New NASA Evidence Points to Biological Processes Active on Mars Hundreds of Millions of Years Ago" Slow down laddy, you're losing perspective.

Even if it was about natural warming, that says nothing about the official position of MIT; which, by the way, (because you seem unable to comprehend simple English) is that global warming is occurring, is the result of human activities, and is leading to chaotic changes in Earth's climate.

Denial. Decide what you want to see, then find minutia to support what you've decided to see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
The US government has made its position clear
Again that's just not true.

"For Obama, the turnaround - from advocating for comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation in Congress to rarely mentioning a global solution to climate change as a candidate for re-election - has been striking."

"Four years later, a starkly different Obama came to the Clinton Global Initiative stage, again as a candidate for the nation's highest office.

"In his speech, the phrases "climate change," "global warming," and even global energy concerns were nowhere to be found... But absent from the line of public figures talking about global warming - at least so far - in the wake of the historic storm: Obama."

-Obamas stance now only covers support for green tech.
means sweet twat
Lets not bring your mother into this.
No, you have cherry picked the opinions of a handful of dissenters and presented it as representative of the whole
ABSOLUTELY NOT. I said that to do so would be lying.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2014
Given you are prone to exaggeration and misrepresentation, I used your criteria to find what I think is the paper you were pretending to link to here: http://www.eureka...2908.php

From the cite:
Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than doubled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming. Until recently, the leveling off of methane levels had suggested that the rate of its emission from the Earth's surface was approximately balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.
and:
A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas.
Yep, just more misrepresentation; they clearly understand that human caused emissions are the problem.

Denialists! So predictable!
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2014
ABSOLUTELY NOT. I said that to do so would be lying.
After going back and re-reading your comments, I retract by statement that you explicitly presented the opinions of a handful of dissenters as representative of the whole; you merely implied it.

I also think that we have crossed arguments. So, allow me a moment to restate my positions:

On global warming - the science is clear, robust, well documented, observed, and multidisciplinary. Those universities and other entities whom you named all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact.

On LNER - to date, there has been little credible evidence that it is real, and the "field" is populated by many whose past endeavors leave them open to criticisms of bias. The entities you claim support the concept do not take such an official position; at best, some members of those organizations are enthusiastic about exploring the idea further.

And your position is?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
The title from the link
Perhaps your mouse is broken. When I click on the link I get

"MIT Team Says "Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle"
"A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas"

-But thanks for the opportunity to post an excerpt. Maybe this means that this week MITs official stance is somewhat more skeptical?
the official position of MIT; which, by the way, (because you seem unable to comprehend simple English) is that global warming is occurring
You repeating this does not make it true. Papers and workshops do not make it true. If they did we could claim that MIT officially endorses LENR couldnt we?.

You have yet to demonstrate that MIT, Stanford, MU or other 'groups' of yours 'officially' agree that global warming is occurring.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
you have cherry picked the opinions of a handful of dissenters
Noooo, I have presented evidence that members of your so-called 'groups' have their own opinions about AGW. Perhaps you dont know what 'cherry-picking' means.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence"

-In this argument I am not obligated to offer evidence supporting your view. Thats your job. And as yet you have offered NO evidence that these institutions officially endorse AGW.

I have presented evidence that members of these groups DO NOT endorse it. They have not been censured as a result. They have not lost tenure or have been fired. Their works do not include the caveat 'The opinions expressed here do not reflect the opinions of [the group] etc.'
I retract by statement that you explicitly presented the opinions of a handful of dissenters as representative of the whole; you merely implied it
Ahaahaa no YOU expressly did this very thing. Now wheres your evidence??
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
On global warming - the science is clear, robust, well documented, observed, and multidisciplinary
Perhaps this was the case years ago. I have presented more recent papers, articles, and statements here which carve great holes in your certitude.
Those universities and other entities whom you named all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact
And until you can actually offer some evidence for this, we will continue to consider it a LIE.

Let me repeat - a LIE.
On LNER - to date, there has been little credible evidence that it is real
And I have demonstrated that your 'date' is years old.
and the "field" is populated by many whose past endeavors leave them open to criticisms of bias
-A new and unsubstantiated argument. A chief scientist of NASA Langley, a team of distinguished scientists and engineers
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

-as well as respected forbes authors and others ALL publicly endorse LENR.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2014
Perhaps you dont know what 'cherry-picking' means.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence"
Where ever did you get this definition? Make it up? Oh, I see, you've cherry-picked it from Wikipedia!
" 1. cher·ry-pick verb; 1. selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available. Google
2.Cher-ry-pick Transitive verb; to select the best or most desirable from. Merriam Webster dictionary
3. Cherry-pick "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position" Wikipedia
4. cherry-pick vb 1. ( tr ) to choose or take the best or most profitable of (a number of things), esp for one's own benefit or gain Collins English Dictionary."

Funny that, you trying to cherry-pick the definition for cherry pick . If you recognize you have already lost the debate, perhaps you should stop debating?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Your quote from the article

"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than doubled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming."
Yep, just more misrepresentation
You bet. If you read the article you see that the scientists dont know where the methane is coming from but suspect bacteria in siberia and the destruction of OH radicals in the atmosphere, 2 natural phenomena.

The phrase 'human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming' is indeed misleading and comes directly from the MIT press office. Perhaps this is how your 'groups' endorse AGW?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Funny that, you trying to cherry-pick the definition for cherry pick . If you recognize you have already lost the debate, perhaps you should stop debating?
You repeating this does not make it true. Papers and workshops do not make it true. If they did we could claim that MIT officially endorses LENR couldnt we?.

You have yet to demonstrate that MIT, Stanford, MU or other 'groups' of yours 'officially' agree that global warming is occurring.

And until you can actually offer some evidence for this, we will continue to consider it a LIE.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2014
Perhaps your mouse is broken. When I click on the link I get
Perhaps your link is. Did I find the paper you were trying to cite, or not? Or are you going to just rely on someone else's (Casey Kazan) interpretation?
Maybe this means that this week MITs official stance is somewhat more skeptical?
Nope. It means you are still cherry-picking.
not include the caveat 'The opinions expressed here do not reflect the opinions of [the group] etc.'
True, because they don't.
YOU expressly did this very thing
Comprehension, such an issue with deniers.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
Perhaps this was the case years ago. I have presented more recent papers, articles, and statements here which carve great holes in your certitude.
You have presented nothing except your view that it is politically motivated.
And until you can actually offer some evidence for this, we will continue to consider it a LIE.
Feel free. Their endorsement is self evident.

This is fun!
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
Noooo, I have presented evidence that members of your so-called 'groups' have their own opinions about AGW.
No, you have cherry picked a handful of those who hold a minority opinion, and who are associated with the groups you named.
You repeating this does not make it true.
I haven't repeated it, although it bears repeating.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
Thats BECAUSE you dont know very much at all about whats been happening in the field. Rossis e-cat may very well be explained by w-l theory. At any event it appears a lot more genuine than it did even a year ago.
We'll see. I keep reading about experiments that are "coming". Of course, I've been reading that for years. Talk is cheap.

I hope you're right. I have been hoping that since 1990 or so. So far, lot's of hype, very little substance.
How is this any different than hot fusion?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2014
How is this any different than hot fusion?


This: http://scienceblo...-why-we/ gives a pretty good overview of both. Be aware, the author concludes cold fusion is unlikely, but I am not putting up to defend either position, it simply gives a good overview.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
Feel free. Their endorsement is self evident.
Whose endorsement are you talking about?
This is fun!
Playing with yourself usually is.
I haven't repeated it, although it bears repeating.
-Yes you did:
These "groups" ALL agree that global warming is occurring...
Actually, these groups all agree global warming is happening...
the official position of MIT; which, by the way, (because you seem unable to comprehend simple English) is that global warming is occurring...
Those universities and other entities whom you named all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact...
Youre becoming infantile. Why dont you stamp your feet? "I did not I did not I did not!!!" -stamps maggnus. Sad.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2014
Aww it's ok Ghost, no need to pout. Tantrums, so unbecoming!

This is a repeat, but seem appropriate at this point

"THE MOST difficult type of persons to deal with are those people who would argue with you but would not listen very well to your arguments and would go on blowing up little statements you make, dragging the discussion into a whole new field that is unrelated to the original subject matter. "
-Ariel Lalison
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
This is also a repeat.

"You have yet to demonstrate that MIT, Stanford, MU or other 'groups' of yours 'officially' agree that global warming is occurring.

And until you can actually offer some evidence for this, we will continue to consider it a LIE."
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2014
This is also a repeat.

"You have yet to demonstrate that MIT, Stanford, MU or other 'groups' of yours 'officially' agree that global warming is occurring.

And until you can actually offer some evidence for this, we will continue to consider it a LIE."
Aww, still pouting. Obfuscation, the final refuge of deniers.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2014
"After 35 years, it's time to accept that adaptation is the way ahead. The problems of climate change, whatever its causes, are the same old human problems of poverty, disease and natural hazards like floods, storms and droughts. The best hope on offer is the continued accumulation of human wealth and knowledge.

Those who wish to slit their wrists at this point, feel free. But think about this: When human knowhow produces new energy technologies to replace current energy technologies, as it eventually will, we know the new technologies will be lower carbon. Why? Because extracting and distributing fossil fuels is fantastically expensive and becoming more so. "
"But engineering and venture capital (Mr. Steyer's job until he retired a year ago) are hard work and require personal resilience, while the pleasure of climate warriorhood is sitting at your little blog and picturing yourself a moral hero whose opponents deserve to be silenced if not exterminated."
http://online.wsj.com/news/a
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
How is this any different than hot fusion?


This: http://scienceblo...-why-we/ gives a pretty good overview of both. Be aware, the author concludes cold fusion is unlikely, but I am not putting up to defend either position, it simply gives a good overview.
Sorry, I still don't see the difference. Hot fusion too has been lot's of hype, with very little substance.

Simply put, productive hot fusion has never been achieved.

verkle
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2014
The report found that 61 out of 66 countries studied had passed laws to promote clean energy.


This is great! I am all for clean environments. But I am not an AWG cultist. I am for it because I like to have clean breathing air, and want to lessen pollution. Not to try to change "climate change." That is an impossible task.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
laws to promote clean energy

How effective are these laws?
Millions of dollars of taxpayer's wealth have been wasted by rent seeking cronies claiming to produce clean energy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
Aww, still pouting
Translation: 'I looked all over for official endorsements and can't find them!' Of course not. Meanwhile independents with the freedom to express themselves are doing so:

"'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change
"'I made a mistake'
[re his new book] It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said.

"As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

"Lovelock... previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence CFCs"

-Hear that? That's the sound of another fashion paradigm shattering. Dupe.
The Shootist
1.2 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2014

Sagan included


Sagan: One of the worse liars evah, when it came to "nuclear winter".

"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
Sorry, I still don't see the difference.
I'm not surprised.
Hot fusion too has been lot's of hype, with very little substance.

Simply put, productive hot fusion has never been achieved.

Hmmm, really? Wait, what IS that bright shiny thing up in the sky? But I digress: several tokomak and stellerator reactors have been built, JET has been operating for years and ITER is under construction.

Simply put, hot fusion HAS been achieved and there are working reactors.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2014
""We've waited 60 years to get close to controlled fusion, and we are now close in both magnetic and inertial," says Steven Cowley, director of the Culham Center for Nuclear Energy, in England, where JET is located. "We must keep at it."

Read more: Nuclear Fusion Achieved in Experiment | TIME.com http://science.ti...up8N3TN7

60 years of weasel words and still NO self-sustaining hot fusion on earth.
I'm not saying it is not worth trying, but the decades of lies saying 'it's just around the corner' is wearing thin.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
Lovelock: "human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role."

"However, if the current global warming is anthropogenic (as Lovelock still firmly believes), human numbers play a critical role in the process."

" Not for a moment has he become a "sceptical environmentalist"; the scientific evidence points unmistakably in the direction of anthropogenic climate change. "

Misrepresenting the views of another in such a way as to suggest they are saying something they are not is a classic denialist tactic, usually used by those with no reasonable argument to make. Fabulist.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014

60 years of weasel words and still NO self-sustaining hot fusion on earth.
I'm not saying it is not worth trying, but the decades of lies saying 'it's just around the corner' is wearing thin.
Only a conspiracist would use the word "lies" in that statement. The decades of being wrong about how soon it would be providing a significant (or any, frankly) portion of our electrical needs suggests the optimism surrounding the overcoming of the obstacles of this technology were misplaced.

Given they are building a fusion plant right now, and JET has been operating for years, it seems the obstacles may have finally been overcome. We shall see.
ubavontuba
3.3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
The report found that 61 out of 66 countries studied had passed laws to promote clean energy.


This is great! I am all for clean environments. But I am not an AWG cultist. I am for it because I like to have clean breathing air, and want to lessen pollution. Not to try to change "climate change." That is an impossible task.
I agree with the former, not necessarily the latter. Given enough time to develop, I think one day we'll have the technology to control climate on global scales.

This will become necessary when we decide to terraform Mars.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2014
Sorry, I still don't see the difference. Hot fusion too has been lot's of hype, with very little substance.

Simply put, productive hot fusion has never been achieved.
Hmmm, really? Wait, what IS that bright shiny thing up in the sky?
That's a naturally occuring object, not an achievement. And it works under physical properties which are not applicable on earth.

But I digress: several tokomak and stellerator reactors have been built, JET has been operating for years and ITER is under construction.
And none have ever produced productive hot fusion.

Simply put, hot fusion HAS been achieved and there are working reactors.
Achievement of non-productive fusion is irrelevant.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
That's a naturally occuring object, not an achievement. And it works under physical properties which are not applicable on earth.
True.

But I digress: several tokomak and stellerator reactors have been built, JET has been operating for years and ITER is under construction.
And none have ever produced productive hot fusion.
JET has been producing excess energy for years. Productivity in this case appears to be simply a matter of scale.

Achievement of non-productive fusion is irrelevant.
Well, not irrelevant, but your point is taken. Again, with ITER under construction, your objection may become moot.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
And none have ever produced productive hot fusion.

@Uba
actually, that depends upon your definition of productive
if we are talking about using it to produce electricity, then NO
but we HAVE used fusion productively in detonations
in fact, our arsenal of nuclear weapons are a very productive set of functional weapons
Achievement of non-productive fusion is irrelevant.

I disagree with this as IMHO its production MUST be studied
therefore ANY production offers the means to give experimental evidence for future use

We are still learning about how to contain it, therefore production under controlled circumstances is necessary, although it is not "productive' in that it does not provide a source of electricity etc that can be used, it IS PRODUCTIVE in other ways, as it provides information, experimental data, etc

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
That's a naturally occuring object, not an achievement. And it works under physical properties which are not applicable on earth.
True.

But I digress: several tokomak and stellerator reactors have been built, JET has been operating for years and ITER is under construction.
And none have ever produced productive hot fusion.
JET has been producing excess energy for years. Productivity in this case appears to be simply a matter of scale.
Not even close.

"In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10MW sustained for over 0.5 sec."

...and that was nearly two decades ago!

Achievement of non-productive fusion is irrelevant.
Well, not irrelevant, but your point is taken. Again, with ITER under construction, your objection may become moot.
I'm highly dubious. I feel it's become apparent they don't quite understand fusion physics as well as they thought.

ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
And none have ever produced productive hot fusion.
@Uba
actually, that depends upon your definition of productive
Indeed.

if we are talking about using it to produce electricity, then NO
Which is the case in discussion.

but we HAVE used fusion productively in detonations
in fact, our arsenal of nuclear weapons are a very productive set of functional weapons
I would argue that's non-productive (destructive).

Achievement of non-productive fusion is irrelevant.
I disagree with this as IMHO its production MUST be studied
therefore ANY production offers the means to give experimental evidence for future use
Possibly, but at what cost? Do you have any idea how many solar power stations could have been built, windmills, and other alternative energy systems with these funds? We could have been well on our way to a clean energy grid.

We are still learning about how to contain it, therefore production under controlled circumstances is necessary, although it is not "productive' in that it does not provide a source of electricity etc that can be used, it IS PRODUCTIVE in other ways, as it provides information, experimental data, etc
I disagree. I think they are chasing their own tails in a false free-energy scheme they simply failed to recognize.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2014
optimism surrounding the overcoming of the obstacles of this technology were misplaced.

No, 'lies' is appropriate as they are required to keep the govt funding stream flowing.

HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
Re: "This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we're "ravaging the planet"—and we're only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion."

See Decision Theory, and Daniel Kahneman's comments in Thinking, Fast and Slow on the widespread observation of post-rationalization in human decision-making. We routinely reverse the flow of evidence from worldview to reasons and arguments. It's actually the opposite of objective thought, and it happens all of the time in the world of scientific theory-making.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
]Not even close.
"In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10MW sustained for over 0.5 sec."
...and that was nearly two decades ago!
Well, that's still production, by any definition. And that was what it was designed to do. So to say "not even close" is pretty negative in the face of the objectives set for, and achieved by, JET.

I'm highly dubious. I feel it's become apparent they don't quite understand fusion physics as well as they thought.
Perhaps, I'm not an expert on fusion physics so I withhold judgement. And the fact is, they are building it. Certainly your comment on the costs has credence.

As said earlier, we'll see. I am somewhat dubious myself, and I note the date of completion has been moved back. Again.

Still, better track record then LENR to date.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
I would argue that's non-productive (destructive)

@uba
your perspective
IMHO - even destructive forces can be constructive
Possibly, but at what cost

research always pays in the end IMHO
Do you have any idea how many solar power stations could have been built, windmills, and other alternative energy systems with these funds? We could have been well on our way to a clean energy grid

conjecture but a good point
there is no evidence that building a solar/windmill grid would support our current/future needs as the rate of consumption will most likely rise unless there is a huge cultural paradigm shift, which seems unlikely at this point
so you must be concentrating on alternative energy
I disagree. I think they are chasing their own tails in a false free-energy scheme they simply failed to recognize

in regard to cold fusion and the above, I agree
in regard to fusion, I disagree
IMHO – it may be closer than we think
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
"In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10MW sustained for over 0.5 sec."
...and that was nearly two decades ago!
Well, that's still production, by any definition. And that was what it was designed to do. So to say "not even close" is pretty negative in the face of the objectives set for, and achieved by, JET.
It's a negative result. If you consider this productive, then you might consider you can become richer simply by giving me all of your worldly wealth. I'll gladly accept goods, cash, and credit.

I'm highly dubious. I feel it's become apparent they don't quite understand fusion physics as well as they thought.
Perhaps, I'm not an expert on fusion physics so I withhold judgement. And the fact is, they are building it. Certainly your comment on the costs has credence.

As said earlier, we'll see. I am somewhat dubious myself, and I note the date of completion has been moved back. Again.

Still, better track record then LENR to date.
I disagree, in consideration of the costs alone (it's better to fail small, than to fail big).

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I'm highly dubious. I feel it's become apparent they don't quite understand fusion physics as well as they thought.

@uba
you know... about this
it appears, based upon the articles that have been posted here on phys.org that it is more about materials science than not knowing fusion physics

we dont appear have the materials that can readily contain/generate the pressures/etc needed for a sustained fusion reaction (emphasis on sustained)

but that does not mean that we cannot develop them
again, this goes back to the research
the more we try, the more we learn, the better we get

the cost seems to be a driving factor in your argument, but shouldnt the end result also be?
not saying that you dont have a legitimate argument, as it is very legit...

it just seems to me that we cannot support current use without a huge shift in cultural attitudes as well as rethinking use/waste
and it also seems apparent (IMHO) that unless something catastrophic happens, it is not likely to change
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
It's a negative result. If you consider this productive, then you might consider you can become richer simply by giving me all of your worldly wealth. I'll gladly accept goods, cash, and credit

@uba
your quotes got mixed up... was the above YOUR quote in reply to Maggnus?
This is your opinion, and opinions are subjective

it is not negative if something is learned IMHO

given that the cost was speculated about before hand, and the cost overruns were also likely included in the submission of the paperwork for funding (at least to a point that could be projected)
then I see that your argument centers mostly around cost vs return

this is also something that is subjective and changes with every individual BUT

in the funding of the project, there was certain criteria that would HAVE to be met, for scientific and other reasons, and as they are met, then it is not a matter of negative return per the funding/continual funding/etc
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
It's a negative result. If you consider this productive, then you might consider you can become richer simply by giving me all of your worldly wealth. I'll gladly accept goods, cash, and credit.
Creating excess power as it was predicted and designed to do is a negative result? OOOKKK.....
I disagree, in consideration of the costs alone (it's better to fail small, than to fail big).
How about "it's better to have produced something than nothing"? Boy, you sure like looking for arguments don't you?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I would argue that's non-productive (destructive)
@uba
your perspective
IMHO - even destructive forces can be constructive
Constructive, in this sense, is not the same as productive.
Possibly, but at what cost
research always pays in the end IMHO
Well as you say, this is an opinion. But have you considered; often research which doesn't pay off simply may not be reported?

Do you have any idea how many solar power stations could have been built, windmills, and other alternative energy systems with these funds? We could have been well on our way to a clean energy grid
conjecture but a good point
there is no evidence that building a solar/windmill grid would support our current/future needs as the rate of consumption will most likely rise unless there is a huge cultural paradigm shift, which seems unlikely at this point
But there's even less evidence for hot fusion.

so you must be concentrating on alternative energy
Solar and wind are alternative energy. And there's lots of other more promising technologies out there.

http://en.wikiped...e_energy

I disagree. I think they are chasing their own tails in a false free-energy scheme they simply failed to recognize
in regard to cold fusion and the above, I agree
in regard to fusion, I disagree
IMHO – it may be closer than we think
Why would you have this opinion? There's no evidence for this.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
I'm highly dubious. I feel it's become apparent they don't quite understand fusion physics as well as they thought.
@uba
you know... about this
it appears, based upon the articles that have been posted here on phys.org that it is more about materials science than not knowing fusion physics

we dont appear have the materials that can readily contain/generate the pressures/etc needed for a sustained fusion reaction (emphasis on sustained)

but that does not mean that we cannot develop them
Actually we can't. At these temperatures, it it physically impossible for a material to hold its form. This is why non-material magnetic containment was developed.

again, this goes back to the research
the more we try, the more we learn, the better we get

the cost seems to be a driving factor in your argument, but shouldnt the end result also be?
When do you decide it's the end? How much good money after bad should we invest?

not saying that you dont have a legitimate argument, as it is very legit...

it just seems to me that we cannot support current use without a huge shift in cultural attitudes as well as rethinking use/waste
and it also seems apparent (IMHO) that unless something catastrophic happens, it is not likely to change
It's already changing. Re-investment in currently proven technologies and in more immediately likely productive technologies would be the wisdom.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Constructive, in this sense, is not the same as productive

@Uba
again, subjective to the individual
But have you considered; often research which doesn't pay off simply may not be reported?

yes
but that doesnt mean you can/cant build on it later
there's even less evidence for hot fusion

we may be talking about different things here
please explain this comment?
there's lots of other more promising technologies out there

I never said there wasnt
where are you going with this?
Why would you have this opinion? There's no evidence for this

depends on your view of evidence, really
we know a great deal (about the physics)
we just have to find a way to make it generate electricity
until you clarify, I cannot really point and give you what you are looking for
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
At these temperatures, it it physically impossible for a material to hold its form. This is why non-material magnetic containment was developed

@uba
my point exactly
we are still having materials problems even with the magnetic containment from what I can tell
but I may be wrong about that
When do you decide it's the end? How much good money after bad should we invest?

this is a very good question, and it is also subjective
when does it become a liability?
There are committee's generated to work on this very problem... and it is possible that a scientist will have a very different view than a non-scientist
I will have to give this MUCH more thought before I can answer honestly
Re-investment in currently proven technologies and in more immediately likely productive technologies would be the wisdom

but again, see above
without more research, we may never know about more productivity/efficiency of tech's, etc

a vicious circle indeed
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
It's a negative result. If you consider this productive, then you might consider you can become richer simply by giving me all of your worldly wealth. I'll gladly accept goods, cash, and credit.
Creating excess power as it was predicted and designed to do is a negative result? OOOKKK.....
What do you not understand about "65% of input power." That means, it took 154% more energy to produce the fusion output than was achieved.

I disagree, in consideration of the costs alone (it's better to fail small, than to fail big).
How about "it's better to have produced something than nothing"? Boy, you sure like looking for arguments don't you?
They used lots of eenrgy to produce a little. Again, if you think this is productive, I'll give you a dollar for every hundred dollars you give to me until your entire fortune is spent. Let's get started.

Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
What do you not understand about "65% of input power." That means, it took 154% more energy to produce the fusion output than was achieved

&
They used lots of eenrgy to produce a little. Again, if you think this is productive,...

@uba
hold on now... this was within the predictions, if I am not mistaken
this is the test that proves whether it is possible
we are LEARNING about the technology
making models/tests to functionally show the ability to do something
this is like the tests they did with fission...
costly, yes
worth it? IMHO – yes

with ANY new technology, there are tests/development/etc that must be done in order to either prove the viability of the technology, or determine that it is not feasible... thats what current tests are

what will the PAYOFF be, is what you are driving at
but again, this is SUBJECTIVE

according to you it is too expensive
but where do you draw that line
and why?

WHY is just as important as where...
ScooterG
1 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2014
"US, British science academies: Climate change is real"

The title of this article is pure idiocy. However, the intent of the title is pure, 100% marketing by monetarily-vested AGW whores.

The objective is to condition people to associate the words "climate change" with negative.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
according to you it is too expensive
but where do you draw that line
and why?

WHY is just as important as where...
Those are subjective questions requiring a consensus of subjective opinions to answer. One individual may provide an opinion, but not the answer.

But it is my opinion this has gone on too long.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Misrepresenting the views of another in such a way as to suggest they are saying something they are not is a classic denialist tactic
I dont know, claiming that govt agencies, educational institutions, and entire GOVTS comprised of 1000s of individuals representing dozens of disciplines, all officially support the notion of global warming, despite failing to provide ANY evidence whatsoever that this is true and despite quotes from many individual members of these 'groups' who obviously believe something entirely different, is pretty seriously MISREPRESENTATIONAL wouldnt you say magg?

Uh no you wouldnt. No intestinal fortitude.
Those universities and other entities whom you named all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact
No its a lie.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
I dont know, claiming that govt agencies, educational institutions, and entire GOVTS comprised of 1000s of individuals representing dozens of disciplines, all officially support the notion of global warming, despite failing to provide ANY evidence whatsoever that this is true and despite quotes from many individual members of these 'groups' who obviously believe something entirely different, is pretty seriously MISREPRESENTATIONAL wouldnt you say magg?
Biased sample. A common denialist tactic.

"THE MOST difficult type of persons to deal with are those people who would argue with you but would not listen very well to your arguments and would go on blowing up little statements you make, dragging the discussion into a whole new field that is unrelated to the original subject matter. "
-Ariel Lalison

Obfuscation. Another common tactic of deniers.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
@ stumpy & @ Uba - Uba your comments set me to looking a bit deeper, as I had thought I had seen a report confirming the extraction of more energy from fusion than had been put in to initiate the fusion. I finally found it - but it was from the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, not JET as I first thought.

http://www.nature...-1.14710

So, perhaps Uba, not such a far fetched idea after all?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
I finally found it - but it was from the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, not JET as I first thought.

http://www.nature...-1.14710

@Maggnus
as soon as I open your link I realised I had read it before... right here under our nose

http://phys.org/n...uel.html

and
http://www.nature...008.html

same study reference and same Nature article ref too

interesting

THANKS FOR THE LINK...
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
as soon as I open your link I realised I had read it before... right here under our nose
Yea I knew there was a report on it, just took me a bit to find it. Didn't think to check this site lol!

THANKS FOR THE LINK...
Happy to chip in on occasion!

PS check out Zephyr's links in the article Deep Ocean Heating something something in answer to a question I gave him. You will shake your head I think!
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
@ stumpy & @ Uba - Uba your comments set me to looking a bit deeper, as I had thought I had seen a report confirming the extraction of more energy from fusion than had been put in to initiate the fusion. I finally found it - but it was from the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, not JET as I first thought.

http://www.nature...-1.14710

So, perhaps Uba, not such a far fetched idea after all?
No, this is at best a distortion, and at worst, outright fraud.

The reaction gave off more energy than was supposedly ABSORBED by it, but most of the energy used simply wasn't absorbed. That's right, it took far more energy to initiate than was attained.

From your own reference:

"Our total gain — fusion energy out divided by laser energy in — is only about 1%,"

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
I finally found it - but it was from the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, not JET as I first thought.

http://www.nature...-1.14710
@Maggnus as soon as I open your link I realised I had read it before... right here under our nose

http://phys.org/n...uel.html

and http://www.nature...008.html

same study reference and same Nature article ref too

interesting

THANKS FOR THE LINK...


I liked this one:

http://www.scient...through/

But it doesn't change my opinion.

From the article:

"All told, only about 1 percent of the energy from the lasers ends up in the fuel, which then pumps out 17,000 joules' worth of energy, or less than the energy needed to make the DT fuel in the first place."

Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
There was a clear (very clean) consensus that climate change is real. That 90% of every scientist there is who looks at the facts, data and studies. Only the deniers object and they are almost all on the fringe of the right wing.

"The title of this article is pure idiocy. However, the intent of the title is pure, 100% marketing by monetarily-vested AGW whores."
Monetarily-vested AGW whores?!?!? Your wingnuttiness is showing and so is your sexists attitudes. I'll bet that is what you call your Mama. A Monetarily vested AGW ,,

Deniers; nothing but walking drooling knuckle daggers pulled out of the pit of Dante's "Hell"!
ScooterG
2 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2014
There was a clear (very clean) consensus that climate change is real. That 90% of every scientist there is who looks at the facts, data and studies. Only the deniers object and they are almost all on the fringe of the right wing.

"The title of this article is pure idiocy. However, the intent of the title is pure, 100% marketing by monetarily-vested AGW whores."
Monetarily-vested AGW whores?!?!? Your wingnuttiness is showing and so is your sexists attitudes. I'll bet that is what you call your Mama. A Monetarily vested AGW ,,

Deniers; nothing but walking drooling knuckle daggers pulled out of the pit of Dante's "Hell"!


No-one ever said the climate wasn't changing. And maybe you should look up the definition of whore.
Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
US, British science academies: Climate change is real

'cause that's where the MONEY is!

Oh, and it was dishonest of them to leave out of the title the caprock linchpin foundational-cornerstone bull-moose gold-star blue-ribbon skeleton-key the-rest-is-gravy no-dammit-the-rest-is-icing "tell 'em what they've won, Bob... You've won A NEW CAR!!!" sine qua non argot grafted from the meteorological patois: "Anthropogenic". But that might have confused the sheep they want to believe this nonsense.

Nobody of note from any side has been arguing that climate is an ever-static unchanging thing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.