3 ms·

The title you chose is "complete list", but your guess is "conservative list". I suspect the difference between your guess and the H1 you chose is caused by glo

The title you chose is "complete list", but your guess is "conservative list". I suspect the difference between your guess and the H1 you chose is caused by global warming. Perhaps. I clicked on a few links - two were 404's, one said that it wasn't caused by GW but was exacerbated by it (ozone repair slowed), one was speculation about shark attacks by a shark expert. One said that nuclear power would probably increase due to global warming. One said that New Zealand would have many fewer melanoma deaths due to GW. The one about jet engines seemed to have nothing to do with GW. It's a good list and a good point. Global warming turned me into a newt. However, IMHO, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere. Edit: Newt reference for those who may not have experienced it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
For somebody so busy? Here I am commenting for hours on HN. Dang, this site is addictive. (sigh) Should have just blogged. Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake. I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about this.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

For somebody so busy? Here I am commenting for hours on HN. Dang, this site is addictive. (sigh) Should have just blogged. Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake. I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about this.