Categories

Top 10

These are the top 10 most viewed posts on BraveNewClimate — happy reading (hits and # comments, in brackets):

Top 10 climate sceptics posts

  1. Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth (45,780; 1,028)

  2. Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer (7,509; 40)

  3. Sceptics (6,709; 15)

  4. Dr David Evans: born-again ‘alarmist’? (6,324; 105)

  5. Climate Denial Crock (5,072; 157)

  6. What Bob Carter and Andrew Bolt fail to grasp (5,006; 185)

  7. Dr Jennifer Marohasy ignores the climate science (2,813; 60)

  8. Two denialist talking points quashed (2,732; 19)

  9. Spot the recycled denial II – 60 Minutes ‘Crunch Time’ (2,433; 65)

  10. The great climate debate 2009 – Brook vs Plimer (2,292; 49)

Top 10 climate information posts

  1. Do most scientists really believe in global warming? (4828; 35)

  • Is there a link between Adelaide’s heatwave and global warming? (4,316; 95)

  • What if the sun got stuck? (3,964; 239)

  • Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint (3,952; 16)

  • El Niño and sunspots return, sea ice doesn’t (3,817; 70)

  • How hot should it have really been over the last 30 years? (2,934; 50)

  • More ice, flat temperatures – what does it all mean? (2,619; 79)

  • Heatwave update and open letter to the PM (2,545; 85)

  • Will global warming cause a mass extinction event? (2,515; 48)

  • Two years, three record heat waves in southeastern Australia (1,932; 76)

    • Top 10 nuclear power posts

    1. Sustainable Nuclear (7,575; 88)

  • Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) nuclear power Q&A (4849; 116)

  • Prescription for the Planet – Part II – newclear energy and boron-powered vehicles (3,324; 28)

  • Radiation – facts, fallacies and phobias (3,075; 248)

  • The Integral Fast Reactor – Summary for policy makers (2,947; 100)

  • Hypocrisies of the antis (2,849; 153)

  • Response to an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) critique (2,742; 133)

  • Recent nuclear power cost estimates – separating fact from myth (2,735; 104)

  • Nuclear century outlook – crystal ball gazing by the WNA (2,708; 458)

  • A LFTR deployment plan for Australia (2,225; 62)

    • Top 10 renewable energy posts

    1. Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage, and costs (6,538; 501)

  • Critique of ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030’ (4,665; 189)

  • Emission cuts realities for electricity (4,563; 329)

  • Wind and carbon emissions – Peter Lang responds (3,336; 233)

  • Renewable Limits (3,043; 32)

  • Does wind power reduce carbon emissions? (3,018; 245)

  • Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum (2,975; 319)

  • TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs (2,622; 163)

  • Climbing mount improbable (2,347; 152)

  • Pumped-hydro energy storage – cost estimates for a feasible system (2,140; 119)

    • Top 10 other pages

    1. About (8,980; 103)

  • Off to China (7,745; 10)

  • Cartoon guide to global warming denial II (6,436; 14)

  • Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? The debate we never had (3,813; 66)

  • Top 10 (3,498; 2)

    • 6. Open Thread 3 (3,174; 526)

    1. Open Thread 4 (2,933; 549)

  • Do climate sceptics and anti-nukes matter? or: How I learned to stop worrying and love energy economics (2,777; 456)

  • Remote solar PV vs small nuclear reactor – electricity cost comparison (2,530; 137)

  • Action Plans (2,318; 5)

    • This ranked list is updated every few months (last updated June 2010).

    If you wish to find a post on a specific topic, you can use the site’s search engine (found underneath the header image on the right hand side), or else browse by category (links are found below the search box).

    Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

    3 replies on “Top 10”

    Barry:

    As a physicist (energy expert) and longtime environmental advocate, I applaud your efforts to educate the public about energy and environmental issues!

    After talking to a LOT of people about renewables (like wind power — the illegitimate offspring of AGW), my conclusion is that almost everyone has only a superficial understanding of this very technical matter. Additionally, the public and political perception of wind energy is being driven by special interest lobbyists, and by “environmentalists” who are well-intentioned but misguided.

    My belief is that such complex technical matters should be based on science, rather than on inputs from those who stand to economically or politically profit.

    The simple webpage where I have collected some pertinent documents is at “WindPowerFacts.Info”.

    I have put on several community presentations about our energy future, with a focus on the question of whether we want our energy policies to be determined by lobbyists or by qualified independent scientists. This is now online at “Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions” EnergyPresentation.Info. (I think you’ll like it enough to consider it an addition for the top 10, or 12.)

    Let me know any questions you have on my presentation, or any of my articles.

    If you like, I will put you on my email list for my informal energy newsletter. (These emailings are periodic, and have been typically once a month or so. There are currently some 3000 readers.)

    regards,

    john droz, jr.
    Brantingham Lake, NY

    Like

    Leave a Reply (Markdown is enabled)