Today: 03.Mar.2021

Vijay Jayaraj, Climate Scientist, Contributor to Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation: It is easy to associate climate skepticism with the Republican Party and climate alarmism with the Democratic Party. It’s also easy to brand skeptics as beneficiaries of big oil and proponents of unfettered capitalism and alarmists as in the pocket of big wind and solar and boosters of socialist central planning. But attitudes about climate change transcend political ideologies, and they should. Here are a few reasons why I, as a climate scientist, am a skeptic.

Garth Paltridge,retired Australian atmospheric physicist. Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies, University of Tasmania. The bottom line of politically correct thought on the matter—the thought that we must collectively do something drastic now to prevent climate change in the future—is so full of holes that it brings the overall sanity of mankind into question. For what it is worth, one possible theory is that mankind, or a fraction of it has become both over-educated and more delicate as a result of a massive increase of its wealth in recent times. It has managed to remove the beliefs of existing religions from its consideration—and now it misses them. As a replacement, it has manufactured a set of beliefs about climate change that can be used to guide and ultimately to control human behaviour. The beliefs are similar to those of the established religions in that they are more or less unprovable in any strict scientific sense.

Published in Australia

Fritz Vahrenholt, PhD Chemistry, Chairman, German Wildlife Foundation: But the beautiful new world of Gretl, Annalena and Robert has its price. The authors anticipated a 60% CO2 reduction, which is expected to be achieved by 2030. By then, that will cost 4300 billion in 11 years. So that the parents of Fridays for the Future understand the 4600 billion correctly: that is 153 billion per year; at 40 million households in Germany each household pays 320 € per month monthly - net. And if it goes to Gretl and her followers, namely in 15 years to achieve 100% renewable energy, then that would be 640 € a month - if it does not sooner come to a collapse of the German energy supply, which is very likely.

Published in Germany

Paul Homewood, editor of This essay provides stories and photos of ice and snow in the first half of May in 2017 and 2019 across Europe. Folklore tells Germans not to even plant grass seed before the middle of May, feasts of the Ice Saints: This is based on centuries of weather and climate experience that snow and ice can occur and kill seedlings in southern Germany until the 15th of May. This article provides stories and photos of cold and snow across Europe in 2017 and 2019. Almost nothing has changed regarding these rules and actual weather since the 1960s despite the majority of citizens in Germany, France and the United Kingdom falling under the wheels of fanatic man-made global warming alarmists in Paris, Potsdam and Berlin.

Germany's cost of switching to wind and solar energy for electricity, abandoning nuclear and coal will cost far more than 600 billion Euros and leave the country with precarious and expensive electrical energy. The problem of fossil fuels for space heating, process heat and transportation will still be there. Germany's decision to go 100% for wind and solar generated electrical energy will have very close to zero affect on climate change which is and always will be dominated by natural factors. Germany's potential enemies smile.

The success of democracy, liberty and prosperous capitalistic economies in Europe depends on Europe sticking with fossil fuels and nuclear. Because there are no other choices, Europe will have to stick to fossil fuels for most needs for space heating, process heat and transportation. France leads the way with nuclear powered electrification of railroads and urban public transportation. Not even Europe is close to following France in this area. Yet energy experts in France predict that the whole world can/will be powered by nuclear energy in less than 50 years. It is obvious to school children that the nuclear construction industry does not have that ability for the whole world to use nuclear to generate electricity plus solve all the political barriers in the next 50 or 100 years. Yes the whole world will use nuclear energy when the nuclear design and construction industry has the ability, when countries have stable and peaceful governments and strong economies and when the artificial barriers to nuclear are torn down. What is the equivalent French fairy tale of the German "Pied Piper of Hamelin" fairy tale? Ay dios mio! Oh my god!

Published in USA