For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.
William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Steven Koonin, New York University, Center for Urban Science and Progress, Under Secretary for Science at U.S. Depart. of Energy in President Obama's administration, Richard Lindzen Emeritus Professor, MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences: This is a tutorial on man-made global warming, man-made climate change for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. 1) The climate is always changing. 2) Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows. 3) It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences. 4) There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today's projections of future changes are highly uncertain.
Tom Tamarkin: AGW or climate change is not the big problem many claim. Only fossil hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear energy can supply material amounts of energy due to their many orders of magnitude higher energy flux densities than so called renewables. Once fossil fuels are depleted beyond the point of economically viable production there is only one energy source available to provide the Earth’s energy needs. That is the conversion of matter into energy as formulated in the equation E=mc2.
Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance, Gregory Wrightstone, geologist who has been investigating the Earth’s processes for more than 35 years. He is author of the newly published book Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know. European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries targeted "witches" who were thought to be responsible for epidemics and crop failures related to declining temperatures of the Little Ice Age. A belief that evil humans were negatively affecting the climate and weather patterns was the “consensus” opinion of that time. How eerily similar is that notion to the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences?
Gerald Marsh, retired nuclear physicist from Argonne National Laboratory presents his views on the science of Man-Made Global Warming and impact on economy and energy security.
John Shanahan, civil engineer, Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Some questions and recommendations about man-made climate change, fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Holman Jenkins, WSJ - A defective radiation-risk standard holds back our most important low-carbon energy source - nuclear power. What keeps nuclear costs high? The “linear no-threshold” model of radiation risk has become the world’s go-to standard for nuclear safety, source of repeated (and unfulfilled) forecasts of thousands of cancer deaths from Chernobyl or Fukushima. LNT is why nuclear plants shoulder artificially huge costs not to protect against accidents, but to protect against trivial emissions.
A half trillion dollars to subsidize renewables would have raised energy prices, worsened inflation, and undermined decarbonization. But what do we do now?
The centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda is dead. The largest component of spending, $570 billion, was for renewables, electric cars, and other climate change investments.
Most dangerously, Build Back Better would have undermined electricity reliability, raised energy prices, and made the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy imports.
_
C3 Headlines is an anonymous American website providing information skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and supporting moderation and efficiency in using the blessings of fossil fuels. Fully supports nuclear power: All that past warming was due to normal climatic oscillations and fluctuations within various cycles. This recent warming had nothing to do with CO2 and other emitted greenhouse gases. Just as occurred in the past, it is highly likely that a major portion of the warming since the Little Ice Age is also natural.
I DON’T have opinions. I have facts. They are repeatable and validated.
Fact #1: No one has ever proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. For more than two decades I have been asking scientists for this proof. If proven, it would also have to be shown that natural carbon dioxide emissions, 97 per cent of the annual total, don’t drive global warming. This also has never been done.
Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut: This website provides many different explanations on the pros and cons of climate change from use of fossil fuels. It is essential to get this right because fossil fuels are so important. Most man-made global warming alarmists essentially reject and ridicule all explanations from global warming skeptics, going so far as to call them "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS." The horrors of the New England Witchcraft Trials and the Inquistion of the Catholic Church weren't as bad as being called a "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER." This article is more technical than we normally post, but it is essential to search for the truth and give the alarmists a chance to deny this science also. The conclusion is still that fossil fuels are not causing catastrophic man-made global warming like Al Gore, Barack Obama and many other politicians and climate alarmist "scientists" claim. It is necessary for nuclear energy advocates to correctly understand all aspects of fossil fuels. Otherwise, what kind of nuclear energy advocates are they?
Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: On and on it goes – with more scare stories daily, more attempts to blame humans and fossil fuels for nearly every interesting or as-yet-unexplained natural phenomenon, weather event or climate fluctuation. And yet countering the manmade climate apocalypse narrative is increasingly difficult – in large part because the $2-trillion-per-year climate “science” and “renewable” energy industry works vigorously to suppress such evidence and discussion … and is aided and abetted by its media and political allies.
It has been a little more than a month since the United Nations climate meeting at Glasgow, yet global use of fossil fuels has increased rapidly.
Within a span of a few months, the U.S. president went from being a climate savior to climate villain. Though many may classify his actions as temporary solutions (to a non-existent problem), the rest of the world sees through the veneer of climate politics and the hypocrisy within.
Tom Harsfield - Presently, the best climate models fall many orders of magnitude short of the power and intricacy needed to effectively predict the long-term climate patterns that emerge from the interactions of all these planetary systems. And that's not a failure of science; it's just the reality of how tough the problem is.But there is a major failure of science going on. The failure is the lack of transparency and honesty about how feeble these models are and how much we should stake on their all-too-fallible forecasts.
Judith Curry,Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences. President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Previously, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology: There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). GCM outputs are used by economists, regulatory agencies and policymakers, so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but non-technical audience.
Don Bogard, radio-geochemistry, nuclear geochemistry, planetary science: The recent release of part 2 of the US National Climate Assessment report, November 2018, prompted all sorts of press reports and similar activity which predicted future calamity and destruction if the world did not take drastic action now. Two points the report did not make -- 1) the UN-IPCC gives a broad range of possible future temperatures of varying probability and the possibility used for this report is at the improbable high end; and 2) it exaggerated any effects from such an unlikely warming. If these future warming predictions have any reality, an increase in global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius, relative to 19th century temperature, cannot be avoided by any action.
The only mention of the Stefan-Boltzmann in the first 31 years of the UN IPCC Assessment Reports occurs in the 6th (2021). The law is implicit in some drawings showing environmental heat flow, especially those showing the upward emission of IR from the surface. However, it is never—repeat NEVER—applied to predicted future surface temperatures. Doing so would expose the folly of most (if not all) climate models.
The sole mention of the equation is in reference to the “Planck Response,” a negative feedback phenomenon. Importantly, it applies to a disequilibrium situation where the heat radiated to space is greater than or less than the heat absorbed from the sun, and tends to hold the surface temperature constant at a set point determined by the solar flux, the albedo, and the greenhouse effect.