You might not want to research this particular link. It appears that it would result in our discussing the absolutely best way to eliminate the problems you see evidenced by 'Global Warming.' Nuclear Power Plants
and almost free power for everyone.
Imagine, just as a 'thought experiment' that everybody had plenty of almost free power, that all cars were electric, that houses were heated with free electricity... That no industry burned coal, or wood, or even Natural Gas... That only trees emitted CO2.
You probably don't want to read this one
The Global Warming Folly
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. A multidisciplinary scientist, he has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. He is well known as an expert on radiation effects, and has served as the chairman of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Among his previous articles in 21st Century Science & Technology is "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase, " Spring 1997, p. 42.
Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real
Opinions critical of the IPCC reports have been expressed by many prominent, competent scientists. For example, Or. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and former Science Adviser to NATO, stated: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Dr. Keith Shine, one of the leading authors of the IPCC reports, described the editing process of the IPCC reports as follows:
"We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it's presented .... They don’t change the data, but the way it's presented. It is peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientist's report."
About half of the scientists who took part in preparing the IPCC report of 1996 do not agree with its conclusions hardly a consensus. Even the leading establishment science journals, Science and Nature, have exposed the IPCCs lack of consensus and its wrong methodology. Nature devoted two editorials to the subject, and an editorial in Science stated that: "If one examines some of the scientific articles on the subject [climate warming modeling], one finds virtually unanimous agreement that the models are deficient." The incompatibility of IPCC procedures with the usual standards of scientific research led Science to write that "IPCC's reputation for procedural correctness and consensus-building around scientific accuracy will be permanently compromised."
Thank you for making me do this. That was fun. I suspect you have some ruminations to attend to.