Climate Misinformers & their climate myths. Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up.
Bad theories are usually rather untidy. But the testing period must come to an end. So a consensus in science is different from a political one. Lead author John Cook created a short video abstract summarizing the study: Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne. MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing. Speaking at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in California, MIT professor Daniel Nocera claims to have created an artificial leaf, made from stable and inexpensive materials, which mimics nature's photosynthesis process. The device is an advanced solar cell, no bigger than a typical playing card, which is left floating in a pool of water.
Then, much like a natural leaf, it uses sunlight to split the water into its two core components, oxygen and hydrogen, which are stored in a fuel cell to be used when producing electricity. Nocera's leaf is stable -- operating continuously for at least 45 hours without a drop in activity in preliminary tests -- and made of widely available, inexpensive materials -- like silicon, electronics and chemical catalysts. It's also powerful, as much as ten times more efficient at carrying out photosynthesis than a natural leaf. Those are impressive claims, but they're also not just pie-in-the-sky, conceptual thoughts. Deaths per TWH by energy source. Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources I wrote this back in 2008 and with one new death that is somewhat nuclear energy related (a death at one of the japanese nuclear plants following the 8.9 earthquake) the statistics are not changed.
Japan should have had sealed backup diesel generators or updated some of their designs. However, nuclear still compares very, very well to the other energy sources. The air pollution data is mainly from the World Health Organization and the european study Externe. Correction on the coal deaths per twh for China. I had to adjust the coal deaths in China and world average. UPDATE: I have taken a comprehensive look at lowering deaths per terawatt hour from energy I reviewed some of the main peer reviewed epidemiological studies conducted around the world have demonstrated that there are close associations between air pollution and health outcomes. IBM Many Eyes visualization has been loaded so you can create graphs of this data But what about Chernobyl ? Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News.
Updated 2010-06-22 5:43 PM Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change. This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity. The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.
" Click here for an interactive graphic that shows how global warming occurs. As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates. The study authors were William R.L. By Doyle Rice. I.imgur.com/rdfVO.jpg. FREE Fotki Image Hosting. Climate_skeptics_960.gif (960×3864)