| 1. |
- Walker, Anthony P, et al.
(författare)
-
Horizon 2020 EuPRAXIA design study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. - : IOP Publishing. - 1742-6588 .- 1742-6596. ; 874:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Horizon 2020 Project EuPRAXIA ("European Plasma Research Accelerator with eXcellence In Applications") is preparing a conceptual design report of a highly compact and cost-effective European facility with multi-GeV electron beams using plasma as the acceleration medium. The accelerator facility will be based on a laser and/or a beam driven plasma acceleration approach and will be used for photon science, high-energy physics (HEP) detector tests, and other applications such as compact X-ray sources for medical imaging or material processing. EuPRAXIA started in November 2015 and will deliver the design report in October 2019. EuPRAXIA aims to be included on the ESFRI roadmap in 2020.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hall, C. Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Denying bogus skepticism in climate change and tourism research.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Tourism Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0261-5177 .- 1879-3193. ; 47, s. 352-356
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This final response to the two climate change denial papers by Shani and Arad further highlights the inaccuracies, misinformation and errors in their commentaries. The obfuscation of scientific research and the consensus on anthropogenic climate change may have significant long-term negative consequences for better understanding the implications of climate change and climate policy for tourism and create confusion and delay in developing and implementing tourism sector responses.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hall, C. Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
No time for smokescreen skepticism : A rejoinder to Shani and Arad
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Tourism Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0261-5177 .- 1879-3193. ; 47, s. 341-347
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Shani and Arad (2014) claimed that tourism scholars tend to endorse the most pessimistic assessments regarding climate change, and that anthropogenic climate change was a "fashionable" and "highly controversial scientific topic". This brief rejoinder provides the balance that is missing from such climate change denial and skepticism studies on climate change and tourism. Recent research provides substantial evidence that reports on anthropogenic climate change are accurate, and that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including from the tourism industry, play a significant role in climate change. Some positive net effects may be experienced by some destinations in the short-term, but in the long-term all elements of the tourism system will be impacted. The expansion of tourism emissions at a rate greater than efficiency gains means that it is increasingly urgent that the tourism sector acknowledge, accept and respond to climate change. Debate on tourism-related adaptation and mitigation measures is to be encouraged and welcomed. Climate change denial is not.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hall, C. Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
On climate change skepticism and denial in tourism
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Sustainable Tourism. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0966-9582 .- 1747-7646. ; 23:1, s. 4-25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The period leading to and immediately after the release of the IPCC's fifth series of climate change assessments saw substantial efforts by climate change denial interests to portray anthropogenic climate change (ACC) as either unproven theory or a negligible contribution to natural climate variability, including the relationship between tourism and climate change. This paper responds to those claims by stressing that the extent of scientific consensus suggests that human-induced warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Second, it responds in the context of tourism research and ACC, highlighting tourism's significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as climate change's potential impacts on tourism at different scales. The paper exposes the tactics used in ACC denial papers to question climate change science by referring to non-peer-reviewed literature, outlier studies, and misinterpretation of research, as well as potential links to think tanks and interest groups. The paper concludes that climate change science does need to improve its communication strategies but that the world-view of some individuals and interests likely precludes acceptance. The connection between ACC and sustainability illustrates the need for debate on adaptation and mitigation strategies, but that debate needs to be grounded in scientific principles not unsupported skepticism.
|
|
