If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Roger Bryant:
I have had enough of the peer review process.
Yes, it can be frustrating. However, no better method of quality control has been found than asking a couple of potential readers what they think of a scientific contribution. Most of us have our pals who will just do that for us, before anything goes off to a third party. The discipline is necessary.
Poor reason, BTW. If you can coherently contradict Karoly and Stott, and you make that public claim, ultimately somebody's going to have to look at your reasoning and tell you if it's right or wrong.
It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.
I think “designed” is the wrong word. “Evolved” might be better.
“Maintaining the status quo of the peer group” seems to me a good thing if it leads to qualified and trustworthy lawyers, doctors, electricians, plumbers, pharmacists and climate scientists.
The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60.
I didn't know that. At the time, I was concerned mainly with exposure of airline pilots to cosmic rays. On some routes, that is likely to be rather more, I suspect. As well as different from the decay of Cobalt-60.
The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
Well, I'm glad he checked the basics. Nobody believes the Yablokov estimate, but neither do we necessarily believe UNSCEAR. It sounds as if he was pointed to the right literature, not before time, but it is a bit of a mystery to me why he berates Caldicott for it, rather than thanking her. There is stuff out there, always is. You gotta know what it is and read it. Looks like he hadn't :-(
Roger Bryant:
I have had enough of the peer review process.
Yes, it can be frustrating. However, no better method of quality control has been found than asking a couple of potential readers what they think of a scientific contribution. Most of us have our pals who will just do that for us, before anything goes off to a third party. The discipline is necessary.
Poor reason, BTW. If you can coherently contradict Karoly and Stott, and you make that public claim, ultimately somebody's going to have to look at your reasoning and tell you if it's right or wrong.
It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.
I think “designed” is the wrong word. “Evolved” might be better.
“Maintaining the status quo of the peer group” seems to me a good thing if it leads to qualified and trustworthy lawyers, doctors, electricians, plumbers, pharmacists and climate scientists.
The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60.
I didn't know that. At the time, I was concerned mainly with exposure of airline pilots to cosmic rays. On some routes, that is likely to be rather more, I suspect. As well as different from the decay of Cobalt-60.
The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
Well, I'm glad he checked the basics. Nobody believes the Yablokov estimate, but neither do we necessarily believe UNSCEAR. It sounds as if he was pointed to the right literature, not before time, but it is a bit of a mystery to me why he berates Caldicott for it, rather than thanking her. There is stuff out there, always is. You gotta know what it is and read it. Looks like he hadn't :-(
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
