Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14]updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
- Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
- Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
- The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
- The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14]updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Literally, there are no respected climate scientists, publishing in the field of climatology that denies man made global warming. None. Maybe one.
IT DOESN'T MATTER! NOBODY CARES.
Technology is the solution. It is in the process. Companies are already working on alternative energy! Technology is the ONLY SOLUTION.
Until there is an energy source that is as efficient as fossil fuels, every country in the world will continue to burn fossil fuels. Period.
Last edited:
Did you not even look at the below post you moron?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ce-energy-power-small-town.html#ixzz45e70HwFn
Tiny turbine that fits on your DESK runs on carbon dioxide - and it can produce enough energy to power a small town
- Turbine runs on carbon dioxide under high pressure and heated to 700˚C
- This supercritical liquid state allows for super-efficient energy production
- Prototype will produce enough power for around 10,000 homes
- But it could be scaled up to power a city, and could help energy firms repurpose waste gas and heat for efficient and clean energy production
Daily Mail LOL. You must be trolling. No one is actually as stupid as you are pretending to be.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601218/desk-size-turbine-could-power-a-town/
GE Global Research is testing a desk-size turbine that could power a small town of about 10,000 homes. The unit is driven by “supercritical carbon dioxide,” which is in a state that at very high pressure and up to 700 °C exists as neither a liquid nor a gas. After the carbon dioxide passes through the turbine, it's cooled and then repressurized before returning for another pass.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601218/desk-size-turbine-could-power-a-town/
GE Global Research is testing a desk-size turbine that could power a small town of about 10,000 homes. The unit is driven by “supercritical carbon dioxide,” which is in a state that at very high pressure and up to 700 °C exists as neither a liquid nor a gas. After the carbon dioxide passes through the turbine, it's cooled and then repressurized before returning for another pass.
OK, so what? While you may get all giddy at this shiny thing, we still need to tax carbon and reduce CO2 pollution. A lot. This possible new tech while interesting from an engineering standpoint does nothing to change that. In fact, unless the power source is zero carbon it will do nothing to stop CO2 pollution.
Do me a favor, next time don't quote the Daily Mail. That's a crap source popular with dumb conservatives and I instantly dismiss it when it's from there.
and not a single peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 causes warming can be found that does not rely on now failed models.
Why? because all that you post is political bullshit to get money and control of the people.
there is no science stating man made co2 causes warming. Just speculation.
Why? because all that you post is political bullshit to get money and control of the people.
there is no science stating man made co2 causes warming. Just speculation.
ricter you can read the original 97% study yourself. we have quoted it many times.
It was a survey of 10000, out of the those who responded they took a subset of 97 and said 95 of those scientists support the idea of man made global warming.
I don't even think they were saying it was necessarily co2. look it up...
It was a survey of 10000, out of the those who responded they took a subset of 97 and said 95 of those scientists support the idea of man made global warming.
I don't even think they were saying it was necessarily co2. look it up...