Study Finds Arctic Warming Effect from Cleaner Energy

The benefits of clean energy are widely discussed, and there is a wide consensus among people in government, science, media, and business that cutting greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution will lead to a cooler globe, or at least limit the warming that it is feared could be catastrophic for the planet.

However, in a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Canadian researchers report that that the reduction in the amount of sulfur dioxide (produced by fossil fuel combustion) in the atmosphere has actually contributed to an increase in the amount of Arctic sea ice melt that has taken place since 2000.

In an article titled, “Impact of aerosol emission controls on future Arctic sea ice cover” researchers state that the increased amount of aerosols in the atmosphere before reaching a peak at around the turn of the century have contributed to the cooling of the atmosphere, and have offset the amount of global warming that had taken place.

From the abstract of the paper:

The overall decrease in aerosol loading causes a warming, largest over the Arctic, which leads to an annual mean reduction in sea ice extent of approximately 1 million km2 over the 21st century in all RCP scenarios. This accounts for approximately 25% of the simulated reduction in sea ice extent in RCP 4.5, and 40% of the reduction in RCP 2.5. In RCP 4.5, the Arctic ocean is projected to become ice-free during summertime in 2045, but it does not become ice-free until 2057 in simulations with aerosol precursor emissions held fixed at 2000 values. Thus, while reductions in aerosol emissions have significant health and environmental benefits, their substantial contribution to projected Arctic climate change should not be overlooked.

The authors say that the reason for the cooling effect is caused by sulfate and organic carbon in the atmosphere scattering solar radiation which result in a net cooling of the climate system.

I find this an interesting study, and perhaps one that will be seen as rather controversial, since it predicts that one of the effects of burning fossil fuels is a cooling one, even though greenhouse gases and black carbon are also produced, which are considered to contribute to warming. Volcanoes and wildfires also contribute to sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere.

It would seem that reduction of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere would be very desirable from the point of view of reducing health problems and environmental contamination. But like the authors say, there may be some consequences of a move to more clean energy sources that need to be considered when looking at the big picture.

One of the study’s authors, Nathan Gillett, is quoted on the Arctic Newswire website as saying that he does not want to give the impression that air quality standards should be reduced, but that that there is a warming role played by reducing sulfur dioxide. ““We’re really just pointing out that it’s part of the picture and should be considered . . . We’re not trying to weigh costs and benefits of sulfur dioxide here.”

  • Ophelia Rump

    I recall running across a reference to the weather effects of the 9/11 disaster upon North America. As I recall for the three days that aircraft traffic was shutdown, there was a marked increase in temperature, supposedly correlated to the lack of Jet pollution.

    I don’t think this study is much of a surprise to anyone, someone long ago proposed dispersing sulfur into the stratosphere or some such to manipulate climate.

    • builditnow

      I remember as well, I think it was thought to be caused mostly by the vapor trails left by jets. Perhaps one could temporally reduce global temperatures by allowing jets to use “dirty” fuels. I could perhaps help to keep the temperature down while we transition to LENR.
      There is also “global dimming”

  • I think we all have allot bigger problems to worry about than “climate change”.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Time for the 180 degree flip now that LENR will be coming online.

    global warming > climate change > ice age

    Burn coal. Tax the E-Cat (while maintaining a carbon tax).

    • Omega Z

      Alan, You see right through their BS. They create justification for a Tax no matter what you do. Should we build a giant spaceship to leave on, they will apply a departure tax along with an annual severance fee. Should this sound silly consider this.

      Move from the U.S. & your still bound by U.S. tax law. Mary someone from another country & their income falls under U.S. tax. Even tho they are not a citizen & would have a major problem becoming a citizen, they still have to pay said taxes.

      2nd, Rescind you U.S. citizenship, become a citizen of another country & you have to pay an estimated tax for the next 5 years. Should your income be more then estimated for those 5 years, you have to pay more plus penalties including possible jail time for tax evasion. In fact, it can take up to 10 years to get out from under U.S. tax law completely after rescinding your citizenship.

      There was a time when the World thought U.S. taxes were to lenient towards it’s citizens. Actually, The U.S. was just lax in enforcement. Having changed it’s enforcement policy, U.S. tax practices are now considered the most progressive in the world.

  • Hi all

    This research then proves human action affects the climate. Adding yet another plank to the climate change argument.

    Who paid for the research?

    Kind Regards walker

  • Ged

    People just like a good doomsday story.

  • Omega Z

    Recall the acid rain for which we installed scrubbers on the coal plants. The sulfur dioxide today comes primarily from China whom built few state of the art coal plants with scrubbers. Thus the reason you see the godawful pictures of Chinese cities.

    Along with the sulfur dioxide, China also pumps out millions of tons of carbon particulates that swirl around the northern hemisphere. These particulates will settle on Ice, snow and glaciers causing it to melt/evaporate at an accelerated rate.

    By shutting down these coal plants, you lose the cooling effects of the sulfur dioxide, but you also reduce the carbon particulates that greatly promotes the melting/evaporation.

    “I’m really just pointing out that it’s part of the picture and should be considered . . . I’m not trying to weigh costs of carbon particulates here.”

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I copy what I wrote in JONP two weeks ago ( ) . It contains a prediction which gets tested in not so distant future if E-cat comes to market massively in China.

    JONP November 11th, 2015 at 1:22 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Concerning the climate, as is well known the increase of the global average temperature by CO2 is an ongoing slow process which is mostly felt in high latitude regions like Finland, because in lower latitudes water vapour is relatively speaking a more important greenhouse gas.

    However, the introduction of LENR energy can have another kind of climatic effect that one can observe sooner. Because of manmade emissions e.g. from China and India, the northern hemisphere atmosphere (which has rather weak mixing with the southern hemisphere airmass)
    presently carries more aerosol particles than the southern hemisphere. This keeps the northern hemisphere slightly cooler than it would be in the absence of those emissions, and that in turn keeps the location of the tropical rainzone (which follows the latitude of maximum temperature) somewhat more south than its natural location. As smoke emissions from coal burning in China and India are reduced, these manmade changes are reversed. As a result, the pattern of rainfall particularly in Africa shifts northward, drying up southern Africa and making the sub-Saharan Africa correspondingly wetter. The timescale of this change is expected to be more rapid than the CO2 induced warming, because aerosol particles have a short lifetime in the atmosphere. If emissions are cut quickly, the climatic change depending on aerosols is also quick. Initially, for some years, it may look as if introducing LENR accelerates the climate change (faster warming of northern hemisphere and shifting rainfall in Aftica), but the period of fast change lasts only until the natural state has been achieved. The global warming effect of the elevated CO2 of course will last for centuries and does not react noticeably to the introduction of LENR.

    • malkom700

      The situation requires an immediate and massive use of geoengineering, is also evident that the methods used to be worked out thoroughly.

      • Agaricus

        Tongue in cheek? I do hope so. Otherwise — your wish is granted…

        Apart from the ‘worked out thoroughly’ part, obviously.

        • malkom700

          No joking, but it is clear that a very risky thing. The highest risk is to do nothing.

          • Agaricus

            Clearly some people are already (covertly) doing quite a lot. Please watch the time lapse films.

            At risk of beginning yet another pointless exchange… Why? No ‘problem’ has been shown to exist, let alone one so serious that systematically wrecking the planetary ecosystem is the best solution. It is as easy to argue that geoengineering is the cause of weather extremes as it is to suppose that a microscopic increase in atmospheric CO2 is any threat.

          • malkom700

            The issue is complicated, but we are forced to deal with it. On this subject will be speak again of the most respected scientists such as Paul J. Crutzen.

          • Omega Z

            “The highest risk is to do nothing.”
            Unless the Data is wrong & you merely make everything worse.

          • malkom700

            I never argued the contrary, however, we should understand that we are in an emergency situation.

      • Andrew

        After looking at some of our civil engineering projects I’m wary to have things done on a global scale…..

        • malkom700

          Yes, but unfortunately there is no choice but already choking and therefore have to move the hands even if we are crippled.

      • bachcole

        yawn . . . . . . I need to concern myself with global warming as a check against my insomnia.

  • georgehants

    It all shows quite conclusively that science has no Evidence on which to base even the most amateurish guesses as to the present, medium or long term climate position.
    The known Evidence shows clearly that there is no unusual warming outside of natural variations that have occurred for millions of years.
    The benefits or penalties of raised CO2 are not in any way understood in a way that definitive positive action can be taken
    With the multi-billion dollar computers completely unable to in any way make a prediction that is even remotely viable, based on the well known chaos theory and butterfly effect, in other words rubbish in rubbish out.
    One cannot agree or deny climate change in either the negative or positive but only continue to observe reality and gather information.
    Science as usual in it’s crazy distorted world is unable to state the words, “We do not know”, give us time to do correct Research with 1 million thermometers and 100,000 sea level gauges.
    Corrupt Governments clearly do not give a damn beyond excuses to raise money to pay for their ego dominated power trips.
    Justified by their complete inaction regarding Cold Fusion.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The Sun brightens one percent per 100 million years, so in Ordovician it was 4-5 % dimmer than today. This is why one needed more greenhouse gases in the old times to keep the earth warm. One must take this relatively big effect into account, otherwise one gets wrong results if one tries to compare present and Ordovician climates.

      There is a “thermostat” mechanism due to weathering of silicate rocks which tends to keep the equatorial temperature constant. Weathering of rocks binds atmospheric CO2 into carbonates and thus cools the earth. However, the weathering rate is a strongly increasing function of temperature. Thus at any time, most of the CO2 removal by weathering takes place in tropics. If tropics gets warmer, weathering rate increases which removes CO2 and the tropic cools. Vice versa, if tropic gets cooler for any reason, weathering rate decreases so that volcanic production CO2 starts to accumulate and warm it up again. In the old times, this mechanism usually kept CO2 high, and tropic was warm as it is now. As a byproduct of that, in that old times higher latitudes were typically warmer than today, because high CO2, relatively speaking, warms more high than low latitudes. Overall, then, high latitudes were often warmer in the past, even though the sun was dimmer. It sounds a contradiction, but it’s not, because it’s explained by how the CO2-silicate thermostat works.

      Of course, there were also glacial periods during which high latitudes were cold, and during which CO2 was lower. During the “snowball” episodes in Neoproterozoic, glaciers probably extended nearly to the equator. In this context I advertise our paper from 2006 on Neoproterozoic glaciations and their connexion with birth of multicellular life,

      • georgehants

        You are just adding information and opinion to a subject that as I have Factually stated above is incomplete and incompletable without the obvious scientific course of action I state below.
        That is the job of science, to over time deduce the Truth from Evidence, not prance around giving “opinions” as if they are Facts before an Evidence based conclusion is possible.
        As I have stated above neither you nor any part of science can give anything like a definitive answer regarding GW or the effects of CO2 in conjunction with the multitude of not understood parameters effecting the situation.
        Every statement or opinion regarding these subjects should begin with a disclaimer, that we do not know the overall effects of any particular input.
        The only sane course of action is 1 million thermometers and 100,000 sea level gauges combining to give global averages over time.

        • GreenWin

          Have to agree with George overall as climate “science” is a nascent pursuit fueled by politics and speculation. It is fairly intuitive that solar activity is the main driver of terrestrial climate cycles – of which the IPCC models fail miserably at understanding or predicting.

          While Main Sequence Stars grow brighter over time (Sun has 7.6 billion years to burn yet) forcings like less cloud formation by cosmic ray nucleation balance a dimmer Sun in old times. Regardless, AGW and the climate gang have shown no support for LENR (outside Carl Page’s Anthropocene Inst.) — which confirms a political, not environmental agenda.

          • GreenWin


            Your titular accolade is refreshing though inaccurate.
            Had you addressed me as “demi-God” we would be more comfortable. As to
            tin foil, there is no such consumer product nor has there been since
            1926. However, were such foil available it would likely be ineffective
            at warding off alien mind probes. Narrow vision and myopic thought is a
            far better preventative. Warm Regards and Happy Thanksgiving (if you’re
            Stateside. 🙂

        • bkrharold

          Pekka was responding to your final quote from skeptical science, explaining the apparent contradiction between carbon dioxide levels and glaciation in the neoproterozoic era which was between 100M – 500M years ago. As he explains the Sun was 4-5% dimmer than it is today. The lifecycle of stars is well understood, based on measurements made possible by the modern telescopes. and theoretical astrophysics. You use this apparent contradiction to make an utterly false claim:-

          “Science has no Evidence on which to base even the most amateurish guesses as to the present, medium or long term climate position.”

          Nothing could be further from the truth, the science is settled. Science is a very conservative endeavor. It takes a vast preponderance of evidence, for any theory to be widely accepted.There is a period which may last many years, during which the theory is challenged and tested. During that time, the theory though scientifically sound, has not met the high standard of proof necessary to be accepted. This does not mean that it is invalid or false. That period has ended, and the verdict is in, anthropomorphic global warming has now been firmly established as a direct result of burning fossil fuel. It is now widely accepted as fact by the science community.

  • BillH

    This is just another piece of evidence, it should just be added to the mountains of data that have already been collected, and not be given any greater weight than it deserves. It is after all a localised picture. If you’ve ever lived in a house heated by a coal fire, or a city whose buildings have been blackened by decades of coal burning you will appreciate the efforts being made to find cleaner solutions. Putting aside the issues of climate change for a moment, coal mining has always been a dirty and dangerous business leading to deaths not only from disasters but from black lung, white finger and silicosis to name a few. Those that pick up an acorn and extrapolate a forest should make sure that they are not just overestimating their own capacities.

    • Omega Z

      Keeping perspective, Fossil fuels is merely a step in human advancement. Each new advance brings improvement over the last, but even the new will carry with it, it’s own negative consequences.

      With fossil energy, we have learned the negatives & learned to minimize those negatives. In much of modern western society, we don’t burn coal in our potbelly stoves for heating. Natural gas is far cleaner & efficient. In a state of the art coal power plant, 95% of emissions can already be eliminated.

      About 90% of those who used to mine coal have been replaced by machines. If things were to progress to the next step, Miners would be in an office operating drone mining machines.

      Other considerations. Fossil energy has allowed a 5 fold plus increase in food production. And an untold number of technology advances. Without these advances, we would likely still be suffer mass epidemics such as Smallpox, the plague and many more. So yeah, it’s true fossil fuels have cost lives, but it has saved vastly more. Life is about trade offs.

      LENR technology could & likely will have it’s own negatives. Most of these negatives will come about do to bad decisions. That happens when you have something cheap & plentiful. People get wasteful & stupid. Perhaps with cheap & plentiful energy, we will want to develop Antarctica into a mega city with huge greenhouses. There is plenty of ice to melt for fresh water, Right?

      • bachcole

        I will be putting “Omega Z” on my list of favorite thinkers.

  • georgehants

    Hhiram, going by the intellect displayed in your reply can I assume you are a qualified scientist of some kind.
    It seems to be based on the same reasoning as the 95% of “scientists” that deny Cold Fusion etc with no reference to the Evidence.
    If you wish to disagree with GreenWin or I could I suggest you try using some of that Evidence to show us in error, without the Crackpot abuse you have used.

  • bachcole

    I resent the emotional spin that HHiram gives to his message; it would seem that he believes in AGW; it would not be the first time here that he fancies his sciencism religion as being all-knowing.

    However I agree with his not wanting it here. It is moot and destructive to our cause, since most people believe as he does; most people will be as turned off to us and our ideas because of these kinds of irrelevant but unpopular ideas as he is turned off by anti-AGW. HHiram has given us a perfect reason as an example of why we should not talk about AGW. It is moot, and therefore any discussion is nothing more than an exercise in egoism and is destructive to our cause.

    Angels, homeopathy, DIY healing of cancer, God, DIY health building, raw milk, small government, etc. etc. etc.: I believe in all of those things. But do any of them help with the acceptance of LENR? And AGW yammering is even worse. At least my list has only items that we all know that I believe is helpful for human beings. But we all KNOW that AGW or anti-AGW is irrelevant to our future. LENR will eventually end the debate, so shouldn’t we be the first to stop yammering on and on about it?

    • Zack Iszard

      I’m OK with that bachole. That just means the share price will stay lower longer for IH’s IPO. More for us, less for them? Justice?

  • Omega Z

    “climate change deniers”
    That’s 60/70% of the U.S.. I want them on LENR’s side.
    Aside from that, LENR will be cheaper & cleaner so the masses will want this regardless of Global Warming factual or not. People always vote their pocketbook, Dam the consequences.

    • Roland

      That would be 70% of Republicans, the majority of US citizens now recognize that AGW constitutes a real threat to our wellbeing; these same folks appear to believe that Trump is fit to be President and many of them believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

      I find it curious that you would quote public opinion on this matter as Cold Fusion is a subject that is only fit for low humour for all but a vanishingly small minority of the general public.

      • Zack Iszard

        I’ll give Trump something over the other media fodder: if elected he probably would do exactly what he already does – yell very loudly about things he’s pissed about. Oh wait, this is every politician! TRUMP IS THE ULTIMATE POLITICIAN.

        I think I can sleep well tonight.

        • Roland

          Trump is the ultimate narcissist. Utterly vain, impervious to either fact or criticism and completely amoral.

  • Roland

    Thank you.

    Go to the link, watch the data unfold and learn.

    I share your concern that informed persons first arriving at ECW are likely to be greeted by a spate of climate science debates in which a number of forum participants advance the views of the 2% of climate ‘scientists’ that still deny there’s a problem of extraordinary scale and consequence.

    There has been a concerted effort by the carbon industry to combat a reality that threatens their business model and influence a public that may eventually seek damages, similar to big tobacco’s efforts to forestall the consequences of their actions, based on what is now in the public domain; we now know with compete certainty the the carbon biz has willfully lied about AGW, and has made a massive commitment to propagandizing the public against this reality for decades, based on Exxon’s own hacked internal documents.

    The parallels to the moment that whistle blowers in the tobacco industry revealed that the link between smoking and lung cancer had been established beyond question in the 1950s by the industry’s own scientists is upon us

    We are beyond the point of debating the merits of differing points of view and firmly in the domain of willful ignorance regarding an issue that completely dwarfs the millions of horrid deaths caused by smoking.

    I do understand that in many regards those assembled here have a contrarian bias, for reasons to numerous to list, against various entrenched opinions that have resisted data that contravene their pet theories. The reality and potential of LENR, our common focus, being a prime example of this.

    A fundamental distrust regarding the impartiality of scientists as a whole has largely been engendered by the realization the their opinions can be bought, often for a pittance, and that many scientists willingly do work that does harm to others without any apparent moral qualms.

    I doubt many here experience significantly greater outrage that this often prevails than I.

    To reiterate a view often expressed here by others; let the data speak first, then form ideas about what the data means.

    • Zack Iszard

      Yes, all the data. ALL the data. Unfortunately, AGW is already political, and it is immune to new facts which may contort or contravene the established status quo.

  • Zack Iszard

    It’s always refreshing to read comments that echo the uselessness of empirical evidence acquired in an academic setting. Want to keep a scientific issue from ever being settled? Turn it into a political issue.

    It is not denial to say that there is room for contravening evidence to the “fossil fuel exhaust = AGW = settled science” mainstream political dogma. It is precisely this that George points out. From the article cited here, one can infer that a no-holds-barred political restriction on fossil fuel burning may: 1.) Not significantly address the myriad problem of human impact on the climate, 2.) Distract from a more circumspect understanding of human impact on climate, and 3.) Cause more economic harm than good. There are a long list of reasons to stop burning fossil fuels besides CO2 pollution, and we will replace it with solid alternatives which are better in most respects (LENR).

    I will here readily admit that I am a “climate change skeptic”, because I do not *deny* that human activity has the capacity to negatively impact the chemistry of the environment, nor do I believe that the AGW debate is settled (or will EVER be settled), mostly because of politicization.

    Water is a profoundly more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. Look at an IR absorption spectrum of each; this fact is very VERY clear if you understand what you’re looking at. Compare this to the same for methane, CFCs, and HFAs, and CO2 seems like less of a big deal all the time.

    • Zack Iszard

      Bottom line: the problem with AGW science and LENR/hot fusion science in the mainstream is the same. They are based more on consensus on previous evidence than the search for new evidence. This is a giant version of what business people call “group think”, or what psychologists call “confirmation bias”. The key: sound like you know what you’re talking about, and only the loudest evidence matters.

      • Manuel Cruz

        Is not groupthink. It is pure and simple dishonesty. They are on purpose focusing on the wrong thing, and when you point them wrong, they do not rectify or debate, but silence and insult opponents while repeating the same lies over and over to turn them into truths.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Hhiram “..believing in conspiracies is childish. It reflects a child-like need for
    every complicated situation to have a “narrative” or “story” with
    tribes, teams, heroes, and villains. It’s a silly way of viewing reality
    that is not useful. At all.”
    Good point of view, and new to me at least. I have often wondered about it. No kidding, perhaps people have just watched too many movies, entertainment industry taken its toll. Perhaps, or perhaps not.

    • georgehants

      33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know…

    • GreenWin

      Pekka, with respect; evidence produced by MIT scientists confirms MIT’s role in corruption of P&F replication data. This is not a childish conspiracy. It is fact. Under U.S. law e.g. the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) — this IS an unlawful conspiracy. Those implicated will be held responsible and it is probably best for consensus science to allow the law to do its job.

      Humanity is not yet at a point where it can dismiss right and wrong as a fundamental component of “reality.” Perhaps one day it will be.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        GW. They falsified evidence because they believed 100% that CF was bogus and they were afraid that it sucks money away from HF which (they thought) had a real chance of succeeding. Whether they really thought so or just wanted to secure funding for their groups, I don’t know, and probably they didn’t even know themselves. Whether it was a conspiracy or not is a matter of definition, I think. The important thing is that what they did was wrong because they broke the rules. “A conspiracy” is a loaded word with somewhat imprecise meaning and I usually avoid using it.

        Be that case as it may, when I read this pages, I see a lot of pathological belief in conspiracy theories in all areas, and it bothers me because it is so unrealistic and misleading. It makes me wonder where such tenet comes from and if it could be somehow cured, because it’s a societal disease. In my opinion, Hhiram gave a fresh point of view on that.

        Take, for example, the climate change. AGW is real, the science is there. That said, climate scientists often tend to exaggerate its effects, and also to get funding they try to link their own research to climate change. The science funding system forces them to do it by Darwinian selection. However, the results what they get are usually not contaminated by that. Just the selection of topic is affected by the political funding priorities. Many people see or sense this, which is right and good. But drawing the conclusion that everything science (or climate science, in this case) says is bogus is not right. Healthy scepticism is good, but scientists can probably get right something that they are all the time measuring and modelling inside out.

  • Agaricus

    As I seem to remember noting once before when you made a similar comment, your choice of emotive and aggressive language seems to reveal defense of a fixed position in the face of contradictory facts rather than a rational consideration of the information available.

    Cognitive Bias: A cognitive bias refers to a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. [1] Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input.[2] An individual’s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world.[3] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.

  • georgehants

    Hhiram, once again you live in a world of illusion and distortion.
    Nowhere do I mention conspiracies or imply them in this case, I clearly state Facts, that incompetent and corrupt science etc. ignore in their ignorance and religious like need to follow unproven consensus.
    The conspiracy to hide Cold Fusion by the scientific community is proven beyond doubt, if you take time to look at the Evidence that has been published on these pages many times.
    You have not as a Scientist would shown any Evidence to refute a single one of the Facts I have given in my comment, but veered off in your own direction as most “scientists” do when faced with something beyond their comprehension.

  • Roland

    Of over 2,000 peer reviewed papers published in 2013 by actual climate scientists, with over 9,000 individual authors, only one author rejects AGW.

    Furthermore 87% of scientists agree that AGW is the correct interpretation of the data regardless of their specialty, which is also the the percentage of well educated ‘liberals’ who agree.

    The less education and income people have the more likely they are to believe that AGW is wrong, the people least likely to accept AGW are white religious conservatives over the age of 60 where support of AGW drops to under 10%.

    There is little hope that the folks who firmly believe that the earth is just over 6,000 years old, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will ever understand the concept of basing opinions on data, and that shifting their opinions as new facts emerge is a good thing.

    Consensus science generaly represents yesterday’s ‘truth’ and to a degree reflects an almost universal desire to be ‘right’ about things. It’s useful to remember that today’s consensus was yesterday’s heresy and that some of it will look ludicrous tomorrow.

    Broadly speaking it has been the inquiring minds who focus on the anomalies that defy the current conventional wisdom who advance human knowledge, Andrea Rossi being a prime example. A generation from now LENR as a practical reality will be the common wisdom and the deniers will be regarded as crackpots.

    The broader challenge to the legitimacy of science as a whole comes from people like this:

  • georgehants

    It may help some people on page to read the definition of conspiracy.
    This World is full of conspiracy’s and it is clearly Factually amazing that any educated person would deny that.
    The only discussion is how manipulative, corrupt, or harmful any conspiracy is.
    The conspiracy by the scientific community to hide Cold Fusion can unquestionably be described as one of the most harmful in scientific history.
    the act of conspiring.
    an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
    Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

  • Roland

    Over 2,000 peer reviewed papers on LENR/Cold Fusion and counting have been published, hello…. That’s how I arrived here; I actually read a bunch of them and was convinced of the reality of LENR well before I heard of Rossi.

    Perhaps you’d like to explore the resources available on this website starting with

    The anti-AGW camp is composed of carbon industry funded junk science (see the Koch brothers), industry funded propaganda (see Exxon), religious flat earthers (see the Tea Party) and folks that just can’t get their heads around the fact that humans can have that big an impact on the ecology of an entire planet.

    The head in the sand attitudes of the true believers in the anti AGW camp have absolutely nothing to do with a paradigm shift, which is itself another concept they obviously don’t, or won’t, understand either.

    As to mainstream medicine, if I were smashed up in a car accident I’d definitely want a modern surgical team. For everything else I first rely on eating real food, lots of exercise, meditation and sleep. I haven’t seen a doctor or eaten a single pill in decades and am in excellent heath as I didn’t wait till I was decrepit to get started on a course of action that works.

  • bkrharold

    The change in global temperatures has been firmly established. The vast majority of climate scientists agree it is linked to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is a direct result of human activity.

    In study released by the World Meteorological Organization, the past 5 years are likely to be the warmest since records began.

    Polar ice caps are melting faster than at any time in the past 10,000 years. Although the Greenland ice sheet is only about one tenth the size of Antarctica, today it is contributing twice as much ice to sea levels.

    Rising sea levels have displaced millions of people. Worldwide, approximately 100 million people live within three feet of sea level. Sea level rise associated with climate change could displace tens of millions of people in low-lying areas – especially in developing countries. Inhabitants of some small island countries that rest barely above the existing sea level are already abandoning their islands, some of the world’s first climate change refugees.

    A US study concluded that a drought caused by climate change Climate change, precipitated the current crisis in Syria.

    California’s wildfire season typically peaks in the summer and into the early fall, with the most intense fires occurring in late September and October. However, fire experts say that since 2000, the number of days considered vulnerable to fire outbreaks has been growing.

    These changes are happening now, they are not theoretical predictions for the future. The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has made several remarks on the subject of climate change:-

    “We are dumping Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth has not seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past. The Dinosaurs never saw the asteroid coming, What is our excuse?”

    “Climate change has taken on political dimensions… That’s odd, because I don’t see people taking sides over E=MC squared, or other fundamental facts of science”

    “When scientists do know something, there are reasons why we know it, and if you don’t understand that, you deny it only at your peril,especially when the result may affect the stability of our future”

    Whether or not you believe the changing climate is a result of human activity or not, the fact that it is changing is undeniable. Even if Neil deGrasse Tyson and 97% of climate scientists are wrong, we have nothing to lose by accepting their findings, and reducing our carbon emissions. It is a better strategy than doing nothing.

  • bkrharold

    I do not understand the point of this study, or why it was published. It seems as useful as a Doctor telling a cancer patient to smoke more cigarettes, in the hope that the extra tar will obscure the appearance of tumors on the xray.
    The title of this article would lead to a conclusion that, clean energy will cause more polar ice cap melting. This might discourage a move to sustainable green energy. An alternative title could have been.. “Sulphur dioxide discharged by burning fossil fuel, is partially protecting us from the climate change”. This would provide more motivation to address the issue of global warming.