NPR had an interesting report then delves into the mentality of people who simply don’t get it.
Why Our Brains Weren't Made To Deal With Climate Change By NPR STAFF • APR 19, 2016 http://ksut.org/post/why-our-brains-werent-made-deal-climate-change
Dr. Hansen is like all the other scientists in saying we have a problem and not stating any method of fixing the problem.Mike is completely misrepresenting another expert on the issue who has spent most of his professional life studying the Earth's climate and specifically the role that significantly increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has. James Hansen has also been very public about how he thinks we should be dealing with human caused global warming starting with an escalating tax on all fossil fuels while giving the money directly to citizens who can then make their own choices about which source of energy to buy. As the tax on fossil fuels goes up they become less competitive to other alternatives. James Hansen also supports nuclear power as part of the replacement of fossil fuels as do I in line with the plans advocated by people like Alvin Weinberg almost a half century ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend
Fee and dividend is the main policy approach advocated by the Citizens Climate Lobby organization.[2] The organization Citizens Climate Lobby, which advocates for such an approach, argues that a fee & dividend policy will be easier to adopt and adjust than more complicated mechanisms, thus enabling an economically sound transition policy that supports monetary economy needs, and the new energy economy, as required.[3] James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been working on raising awareness on 'Fee & Dividend'[4] through his position at Columbia University,[5] and an open letter discussed in The Guardian.[6]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
James Hansen, former NASA climate scientist, and three other prominent climate scientists are calling for an enlarged focus on nuclear energy in the ongoing Paris climate negotiations. "Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change," Hansen said during a panel discussion yesterday. "The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won't use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazyhttp://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-passion-of-alvin-weinberg
When four top climate scientists released a letter last November urging the expansion of safe nuclear power to fight climate change, the world took note. But few people realize that more than 40 years previously, and a decade before James Hansen’s high-profile testimony before Congress, one of America’s leading nuclear engineers was speaking out on the looming prospect of global warming. Alvin Weinberg spent much of his early career pushing for his thorium-fueled, molten salt nuclear reactor design – much to the chagrin of the industry – but when the government abandoned it, he began to broadly advocate nuclear power as a way to provide abundant electricity for an energy-hungry world and wean the US off fossil fuels. It took 40 years, but a new generation of engineers concerned about climate change is rediscovering Weinberg and his design. That the Chinese government has invested $350 million in a new molten-salt project shows just how significant Weinberg’s impact has been on the broader development of nuclear.As I've been saying this is typical global warming denial at work, according to deniers like Mike; 1. There's no problem, heck burning all that coal, oil and gas is great because it's keeping the world from freezing again. I read this article by this guy who talked to this other guy and that guy had a dream that the glaciers were coming back...so keep burning them fossil fuels. 2. There's nothing we can do, nobody has any solution, we need to keep making the Kochs, ExxoMobil, BP, Shell, etc, rich until the end of time. Global warming denial is lying for a living at an incredible cost to people and the planet. People who do it couldn't care less about other people or species, it's about them and all the money they want to keep making no matter how much damage and death results. In exactly the same way the tobacco industry did because it's the same campaign of denial.
Dr. Hansen is like all the other scientists in saying we have a problem and not stating any method of fixing the problem.Mike is completely misrepresenting another expert on the issue who has spent most of his professional life studying the Earth's climate and specifically the role that significantly increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has. James Hansen has also been very public about how he thinks we should be dealing with human caused global warming starting with an escalating tax on all fossil fuels while giving the money directly to citizens who can then make their own choices about which source of energy to buy. As the tax on fossil fuels goes up they become less competitive to other alternatives. James Hansen also supports nuclear power as part of the replacement of fossil fuels as do I in line with the plans advocated by people like Alvin Weinberg almost a half century ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/ http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-passion-of-alvin-weinberg As I've been saying this is typical global warming denial at work, according to deniers like Mike; 1. There's no problem, heck burning all that coal, oil and gas is great because it's keeping the world from freezing again. I read this article by this guy who talked to this other guy and that guy had a dream that the glaciers were coming back...so keep burning them fossil fuels. 2. There's nothing we can do, nobody has any solution, we need to keep making the Kochs, ExxoMobil, BP, Shell, etc, rich until the end of time. Global warming denial is lying for a living at an incredible cost to people and the planet. People who do it couldn't care less about other people or species, it's about them and all the money they want to keep making no matter how much damage and death results. In exactly the same way the tobacco industry did because it's the same campaign of denial. Great to hear the Global warming problems are all fixed. Who would have guess the global warming problems were nothing more than a conspiracy by big companies and a bunch of deniers. Do you think we should have a big celebration now that you have fixed all the problems? Tell me, if nuclear power is the answer. Is the climate change problem worldwide or just in countries that can safely handle nuclear power? So the safe answer is to give nuclear power to everyone?
I have read several articles by researchers warning of jump in the cooling cycle.Show us this alleged research. No more unsubstantiated "I read an article..." arguments. You have a history of making stuff up, such as the claim that past CO2 levels have been 300 times current levels. BTW, you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that. Paper by Hoffman; Kaufman; Halverson; Schrag. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed “...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level."
I have read several articles by researchers warning of jump in the cooling cycle.Show us this alleged research. No more unsubstantiated "I read an article..." arguments. You have a history of making stuff up, such as the claim that past CO2 levels have been 300 times current levels. BTW, you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that. Paper by Hoffman; Kaufman; Halverson; Schrag. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed “...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level." That's a link to pubmed.
I have read several articles by researchers warning of jump in the cooling cycle.Show us this alleged research. No more unsubstantiated "I read an article..." arguments. You have a history of making stuff up, such as the claim that past CO2 levels have been 300 times current levels. BTW, you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that. Paper by Hoffman; Kaufman; Halverson; Schrag. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed “...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level." What a fraud, he links to a biomed journal with no article even attached. Getting a little desperate are we. There is no evidence for CO2 levels to have ever been 100 let alone 300 times what they are today. It's hypothesized that Co2 levels may have reached 50 times present levels during the snowball Earth because there needs to be some mechanism to melt all that ice. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here and the Earth would be covered in ice to the Equator.
Great to hear the Global warming problems are all fixed. Who would have guess the global warming problems were nothing more than a conspiracy by big companies and a bunch of deniers. Do you think we should have a big celebration now that you have fixed all the problems? Tell me, if nuclear power is the answer. Is the climate change problem worldwide or just in countries that can safely handle nuclear power? So the safe answer is to give nuclear power to everyone?The problems aren't fixed, if we'd started dealing with this catastrophe 30 years ago when experts like James Hansen were strongly advising us to then there wouldn't be a problem. But instead as I've already posted, the fossil fuel industry got together with the tobacco lobby and started a disinformation campaign that has lasted for decades and effectively prevented any actions being taken for humanity to protect itself. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.A campaign you seem more than likely to be part of since you post most of the same disinformation and seem to have no concern at all for the evidence and the lives being put at risk.
I have read several articles by researchers warning of jump in the cooling cycle.Show us this alleged research. No more unsubstantiated "I read an article..." arguments. You have a history of making stuff up, such as the claim that past CO2 levels have been 300 times current levels. BTW, you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that. Paper by Hoffman; Kaufman; Halverson; Schrag. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed “...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level." What a fraud, he links to a biomed journal with no article even attached. Getting a little desperate are we. There is no evidence for CO2 levels to have ever been 100 let alone 300 times what they are today. It's hypothesized that Co2 levels may have reached 50 times present levels during the snowball Earth because there needs to be some mechanism to melt all that ice. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here and the Earth would be covered in ice to the Equator. I’m a fraud! Talk about spoiled, you want everything given to you on a silver plate or you are just looking for something to bitch about because you are spinning your wheels where you are at with CC. It is there and anybody that is computer wise can find it in two seconds. I give you a quote from an abstract by four authors and you tell me they don’t know shit. Where is your links for your statements, if you want to play those games? As far as a mechanism to melt the snowball, I think there are several theories out on how that may have occurred. I’m not favoring any of the theories over the others, I don’t think there is enough data for any of the theories to be that strong yet. If you can’t find data on a site, ask nice and I will help.
I’m a fraud! Talk about spoiled, you want everything given to you on a silver plate or you are just looking for something to bitch about because you are spinning your wheels where you are at with CC. It is there and anybody that is computer wise can find it in two seconds. I give you a quote from an abstract by four authors and you tell me they don’t know shit. Where is your links for your statements, if you want to play those games? As far as a mechanism to melt the snowball, I think there are several theories out on how that may have occurred. I’m not favoring any of the theories over the others, I don’t think there is enough data for any of the theories to be that strong yet. If you can’t find data on a site, ask nice and I will help.All right, Mike. I did a little digging and found some information on this. You're right, CO2 levels did reach as high as 5,000 ppm 450 million years ago. However, that is irrelevant to today's world because the Sun was less active back then and therefore contributed less heat to Earth. What you've done is take one sentence from an abstract without investigating further. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?] The answer is "No."
Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice (with one notable exception, discussed below). This leads to the concept of the CO2-ice threshold - the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation. When the sun is less active, the CO2-ice threshold is much higher. For example, while the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is estimated to be 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) is 3000 ppm.
Great to hear the Global warming problems are all fixed. Who would have guess the global warming problems were nothing more than a conspiracy by big companies and a bunch of deniers. Do you think we should have a big celebration now that you have fixed all the problems? Tell me, if nuclear power is the answer. Is the climate change problem worldwide or just in countries that can safely handle nuclear power? So the safe answer is to give nuclear power to everyone?The problems aren't fixed, if we'd started dealing with this catastrophe 30 years ago when experts like James Hansen were strongly advising us to then there wouldn't be a problem. But instead as I've already posted, the fossil fuel industry got together with the tobacco lobby and started a disinformation campaign that has lasted for decades and effectively prevented any actions being taken for humanity to protect itself. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.A campaign you seem more than likely to be part of since you post most of the same disinformation and seem to have no concern at all for the evidence and the lives being put at risk. Doug that is called passing the buck. The reason we are using the amounts of fossil fuels today is because the nuclear energy that was supposed to be plentiful and really, really cheap and leave no radioactive waste according to our top scientists who said that in front of congress on national television. Didn’t happen. Congress at the time choose the path we are on today. It was not Exxon or the big tobacco companies. So, thirty years ago when people like Janes Hansen was saying there was a problem. The new energy programs were going to help solve that problem. Point being, they were dealing with the problem at the time. Added, should also be noted that thirty years ago, Global Warming was not the problem, it was global cooling and heading into the next ice age.
Doug that is called passing the buck. The reason we are using the amounts of fossil fuels today is because the nuclear energy that was supposed to be plentiful and really, really cheap and leave no radioactive waste according to our top scientists who said that in front of congress on national television. Didn’t happen. Congress at the time choose the path we are on today. It was not Exxon or the big tobacco companies. So, thirty years ago when people like Janes Hansen was saying there was a problem. The new energy programs were going to help solve that problem. Point being, they were dealing with the problem at the time. Added, should also be noted that thirty years ago, Global Warming was not the problem, it was global cooling and heading into the next ice age.Sure go ahead and try and paper over the fact that you just tried to pass off a bogus "article" in a biomed journal to support your completely unsupportable position on CO2 and its role in moderating global climate. You had next to no credibility on this issue before, I think that exposed you as an outright fraud.
I’m a fraud! Talk about spoiled, you want everything given to you on a silver plate or you are just looking for something to bitch about because you are spinning your wheels where you are at with CC. It is there and anybody that is computer wise can find it in two seconds. I give you a quote from an abstract by four authors and you tell me they don’t know shit. Where is your links for your statements, if you want to play those games? As far as a mechanism to melt the snowball, I think there are several theories out on how that may have occurred. I’m not favoring any of the theories over the others, I don’t think there is enough data for any of the theories to be that strong yet. If you can’t find data on a site, ask nice and I will help.You linked to a non-existent article on a journal that isn't even related to planetary studies to support your unsupportable claims, that's intellectual fraud. Post something concrete that falsefies in the slightest the large amount of well documented evidence of carbon dioxide and its role in moderating the global climate that is now leading to catastrophic global warming. Talking about something you read somewhere doesn't cut, posting links that lead no where is fraud and a deadly one when you look at how much death damage and destruction has already been caused by the fossil fuel sector demanded inaction. http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media
A new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) shows that the climate denial echo chamber organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Koch family foundations produced misinformation that effectively polluted mainstream media coverage of climate science and polarized the climate policy debate.In the end all that global warming deniers communicate is how much contempt they have for other people in the same way the tobacco industry did in orchestrating the deaths of millions to keep selling hazardous material that people habitually inhaled into their lungs. In a global sense burning tens of billions of tons of fossil fuels a year is a four pack a day habit of cigarettes...for us all. And the deadly health consequences are already setting in. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/forest-fires-climate-changes-new-normal/article19793117/ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27624478 https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/heat-waves-and-climate-change/heat-waves-the-details/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kevin-trenberth-on-climate-change-and-tornadoes/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-climate-change-cause-conflict/ Catastrophic climate change is already here for millions of people so save your self righteousness, it's as phony as the claims you keep making.
I’m a fraud! Talk about spoiled, you want everything given to you on a silver plate or you are just looking for something to bitch about because you are spinning your wheels where you are at with CC. It is there and anybody that is computer wise can find it in two seconds. I give you a quote from an abstract by four authors and you tell me they don’t know shit. Where is your links for your statements, if you want to play those games? As far as a mechanism to melt the snowball, I think there are several theories out on how that may have occurred. I’m not favoring any of the theories over the others, I don’t think there is enough data for any of the theories to be that strong yet. If you can’t find data on a site, ask nice and I will help.All right, Mike. I did a little digging and found some information on this. You're right, CO2 levels did reach as high as 5,000 ppm 450 million years ago. However, that is irrelevant to today's world because the Sun was less active back then and therefore contributed less heat to Earth. What you've done is take one sentence from an abstract without investigating further. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?] The answer is "No."
Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice (with one notable exception, discussed below). This leads to the concept of the CO2-ice threshold - the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation. When the sun is less active, the CO2-ice threshold is much higher. For example, while the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is estimated to be 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) is 3000 ppm.Mike is claiming that CO2 levels were as high as 140,000 ppm at some point in the Earth's past for which there is no information. And it would have likely have triggered a run away greenhouse effect if CO2 levels ever did get that high. Basic physics makes this highly unlikely.
...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level."
You linked to a non-existent article on a journal that isn't even related to planetary studies to support your unsupportable claims, that's intellectual fraud. Post something concrete that falsefies in the slightest the large amount of well documented evidence of carbon dioxide and its role in moderating the global climate that is now leading to catastrophic global warming. Talking about something you read somewhere doesn't cut, posting links that lead no where is fraud and a deadly one when you look at how much death damage and destruction has already been caused by the fossil fuel sector demanded inaction.PubMed.gov abstract name that according to you " ...that isn’t even related to planetary studies..." was “A Neoproterozoic snowball earth". Other articles cited and linked to PubMed are to name a few; Arsenic stress after the Proterozoic glaciations. Orbital forcing of climate 1.4 billion years ago. Proterozoic oxygen rise linked to shifting balance between seafloor and terrestrial weathering. Re-Os geochronology and coupled Os-Sr isotope constraints on the Sturtian snowball Earth. The dependence of the ice-albedo feedback on atmospheric properties. Dynamic model constraints on oxygen-17 depletion in atmospheric O2 after a snowball Earth. Adaptive signals in algal Rubisco reveal a history of ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide. Evolution of the ocean's "biological pump". Equatorial convergence of India and early Cenozoic climate trends. Methane, oxygen, photosynthesis, rubisco and the regulation of the air through time. Dynamics of the Neoproterozoic carbon cycle. Doug, are all these articles intellectual fraud too? Sounds like you want to shut this PubMed.gov site down for posting non-existent articles and committing intellectual fraud. May be this will help you. Website Usage This site is maintained by the U.S. Government and is protected by various provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Violations of Title 18 are subject to criminal prosecution in a federal court. For site security purposes, as well as to ensure that this service remains available to all users, we use software programs to monitor traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information or otherwise cause damage. In the event of authorized law enforcement investigations and pursuant to any required legal process, information from these sources may be used to help identify an individual. You should contact the government and let them know what is going on according to you.
You linked to a non-existent article on a journal that isn't even related to planetary studies to support your unsupportable claims, that's intellectual fraud. Post something concrete that falsefies in the slightest the large amount of well documented evidence of carbon dioxide and its role in moderating the global climate that is now leading to catastrophic global warming. Talking about something you read somewhere doesn't cut, posting links that lead no where is fraud and a deadly one when you look at how much death damage and destruction has already been caused by the fossil fuel sector demanded inaction.PubMed.gov abstract name that according to you " ...that isn’t even related to planetary studies..." was “A Neoproterozoic snowball earth". Other articles cited and linked to PubMed are to name a few; Arsenic stress after the Proterozoic glaciations. Orbital forcing of climate 1.4 billion years ago. Proterozoic oxygen rise linked to shifting balance between seafloor and terrestrial weathering. Re-Os geochronology and coupled Os-Sr isotope constraints on the Sturtian snowball Earth. The dependence of the ice-albedo feedback on atmospheric properties. Dynamic model constraints on oxygen-17 depletion in atmospheric O2 after a snowball Earth. Adaptive signals in algal Rubisco reveal a history of ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide. Evolution of the ocean's "biological pump". Equatorial convergence of India and early Cenozoic climate trends. Methane, oxygen, photosynthesis, rubisco and the regulation of the air through time. Dynamics of the Neoproterozoic carbon cycle. Doug, are all these articles intellectual fraud too? Sounds like you want to shut this PubMed.gov site down for posting non-existent articles and committing intellectual fraud. May be this will help you. Website Usage This site is maintained by the U.S. Government and is protected by various provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Violations of Title 18 are subject to criminal prosecution in a federal court. For site security purposes, as well as to ensure that this service remains available to all users, we use software programs to monitor traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information or otherwise cause damage. In the event of authorized law enforcement investigations and pursuant to any required legal process, information from these sources may be used to help identify an individual. You should contact the government and let them know what is going on according to you. No, what would help is an actual article that supports your claims, not a link to a journal that may somewhere have something distantly related to what you keep claiming. That's meaningless in the most important issue of our time. If carbon dioxide levels were over 100,000 ppm at some point in the Earth's history as you've repeatedly claimed then post evidence that supports that. You linked to journal, not an article.
One more time, we’re seeing exactly how global warming deniers keep the “debate” going.
There is no evidence to support the claims being made, the whole point for “people” like Mike Yohe is to keep the discussion going to create the illusion there is any real doubt of the role that human emitted carbon dioxide is having in driving the entire global climate into a catastrophic state for us humans and millions of other species.
You can see the whole point is to create contention and confusion because there is no real evidence to support global warming denial.
Just massively funded think tanks…
One more time, we're seeing exactly how global warming deniers keep the "debate" going. There is no evidence to support the claims being made, the whole point for "people" like Mike Yohe is to keep the discussion going to create the illusion there is any real doubt of the role that human emitted carbon dioxide is having in driving the entire global climate into a catastrophic state for us humans and millions of other species. You can see the whole point is to create contention and confusion because there is no real evidence to support global warming denial. Just massively funded think tanks...In post #299 you stated that “You linked to a non-existent article on a journal…" and now in post #302 you stated that “You linked to journal, not an article." And what for? Where your posts keep going is to the deniers talk. You keep spinning your wheels on CC and what you are really interested in is “deniers". I believe in am ten times more concerned about the earth and the climate than you will ever be. You seem to be part of a small movement that feed on conspiracy theories and when you don’t have deniers, you create them. I don’t give a damn about deniers or what the Exxon is doing. I am concerned about the climate.
In post #299 you stated that “You linked to a non-existent article on a journal…" and now in post #302 you stated that “You linked to journal, not an article." And what for? Where your posts keep going is to the deniers talk. You keep spinning your wheels on CC and what you are really interested in is “deniers". I believe in am ten times more concerned about the earth and the climate than you will ever be. You seem to be part of a small movement that feed on conspiracy theories and when you don’t have deniers, you create them. I don’t give a damn about deniers or what the Exxon is doing. I am concerned about the climate.Exactly, where is the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims. Show the slightest bit of evidence that atmospheric levels of CO2 were at 400 ppm X 300 = 120,000 ppm CO2 in the last 800,000 years let alone 350 X 400ppm = 140,000 ppm CO2 at any period in the Earth's history. Present any credible source that supports anything like that.... You can't because it doesn't exist and as we've already established that there is an extensive multi-decadal disinformation campaign to confuse this issue in exactly the same manner you're doing the most likely explanation is that you are in fact a global warming denier. Retract the unsupported statements, or be treated like one...
This is why deniers like Mike are unable to present any evidence to support their claims that climate change isn’t serious and that we aren’t responsible through things like massive emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.
There are virtually no peer reviewed evidence based scientific studies that contradict the fact that human generated CO2 is a very serious issues with existential ramifications for our and many other species.
I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.It's not that people who are deeply concerned about this issue just don't get it which is the central thesis of deniers like Mike Yohe, it's that all the credible evidence is in support of getting off of fossil fuels as fast as possible. No matter what the lunatic fringe keeps claiming...
And here’s where the author of the above study reviews the one dissenting article by a Russian researcher.
http://www.jamespowell.org/Avakyan/Avakyan.html
A clue to the author's motivation comes on the first page of the article, where he writes,"The switch of world powers first to decreasing the use of fossil fuel and then to carbon-free energy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may lead to economic collapse for Russia as a consequence of the reduction and, probably, even loss of the possibility to sell oil and natural gas on the world market."Climate change denial has everything to do with the economic impacts of phasing out fossil fuels and nothing at all to do with the physical evidence. Which easily explains why it's almost totally funded by the fossil fuel lobby, it's an absolute conflict of interest in the same way the tobacco lobby was in spending tens of millions of dollars in the 1980s to link all sort of different products except their own with cancer and other serious health issues.