I don't see that. Nuclear is still seen as essential:

“No single mitigation option in the energy supply sector will be sufficient,” the report warns. “Achieving deep cuts [in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] will require more intensive use of low-GHG technologies such as renewable energy, nuclear energy, and CCS.”

From TFA: "Most important, the report’s scenarios show how nuclear power boosts de-carbonization efforts. To stabilize the climate at an average global surface temperature no higher than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, scenarios without nuclear expansion would require global energy supply to be radically curtailed below currently projected demand. With an expansion of nuclear power, however, the climate could be stabilized with far more modest efficiencies."

(define (showNumbers x output)

(if (zero? x)

ouput

(showNumbers (sub1 x) (concatenate x output ))))

Tail recursion should be used if stack is a concern.

There's no way this is not some kind of false flag comment.

Similarly, Forbes relies on the Heartland Institute's James Taylor (also not a scientist) to report on climate change. How bad is the Forbes reporting? Well, in an August 2012 interview, I correctly stated that in a warming world, hurricane intensity can increase and these increases are being observed. Also, rainfall, storm surge, and storm size can be affected.

In response, Mr. Taylor attacked me and discussed the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, as if the two were the same. Obviously, he either misunderstood my comments or does not have the knowledge to interpret them. When I asked for the right to rebut Mr. Taylor, what did I hear? Crickets. Did Forbes feel even a bit embarrassed when just over a month later, Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. coast, causing approximately $65 billion in damage? Do they feel embarrassed now that the newly released IPCC report supports me, not their non-scientist Mr. Taylor? Perhaps we will never know. - http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Soooooo... Sexism?

Ironic :) The finding is interesting though. I'm not sure why so many here are threatened by it.

You are suggesting that female-run companies are more successful because the vagina bestows some management power that penis equipped CEOs lack? You could be right, but I would think that companies that promote based on merit would be more successful. Likely companies with woman as CEO are not promoting based on genitalia but rather based on merit.

Unlikely. But possibly. Companies that promotes based on merit rather than genitalia are probably more likely to succeed. Companies that include "has a penis" as a criteria for CEO are probably focusing on the wrong attributes.

Possibly because they are a meritocracy rather than a patriarchy.

It also covered development and launching of satellites which also have dual/triple use.

Wrong. They are not significantly different. This failure to understand statistical significance makes everything you said after incorrect.

How do you know? Do you understand what statistical significance means. You use those words a lot but you don't seem to understand them... In fact, Tamino shows that there is no evidence that the 1970-2000 trend hasn't continued apace.

But the GISS warming is not significantly different from HADCRU for ANY period. Cowtan+Way2014 shows that GISS has a cooling bias.