- Home
-
Board
- Editorial Board
- Apply For Reviewer
-
Research Publishing Standards
- Guidelines
- Peer Review Policy
- Short Guide to New Editors
- Retraction Guidelines
- Research Institute
- Recommendations for the Board of Directors
- Editor Research Audit and Service Assessments
- Guidelines for Journals Publishers
- Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
- Commandment in Social Media
- Suggestions
- Authorship Disputes
- Rights and Responsibilities
- Editors Home
- Visibility
- Information
- Apply for Editorial
- About
- Call for Paper
- Research Community
-
Journals
- Computer Science
-
Medical Research
- A: Neurology & Nervous System
- B: Pharma, Drug Discovery, Toxicology & Medicine
- C: Microbiology & Pathology
- D: Radiology, Diagnostic Imaging and Instrumentation
- E: Gynecology & Obstetrics
- F: Diseasescancer, ophthalmology & pediatric
- G: Veterinary Science & Veterinary Medicine
- H: Orthopedic & Musculoskeletal System
- I: Surgeries & Cardiovascular System
- J: Dentistry & Otolaryngology
- K: Interdisciplinary
- L:Nutrition and Food Science
- Engineering
- Science Frontier Research
- Management
-
Human-Social Science
- A: Arts & Humanities psychology, public administration, library sciences, sports, arts, media, music
- B: Geography, Environmental Science & Disaster Management
- C: Sociology & Culture
- D: History, Archaeology & Anthropology
- E: Economics
- F: Political Science
- G: Linguistics & Education
- H: Interdisciplinary
-
Fellow
-
Support
Account
×
The Resolution of the Cornucopian-Ecologist Issue
Cornucopiansandecologistshavedebatedthehypothesesofglobalwarmingasaresultoftheemissionofgreenhousegasesforseveraldecades,focusingupondifferentinterpretationsofrisk:resilienceagainstprecaution.One can now employ recently available data on GDP, energyconsumption,emissionsandglobalaveragetemperaturetodecide between these two positions. The cornucopian positionis wrong, the evidence strongly indicates.
