climate change

Uli Weber, Geophysiker: Die Wikinger hatten einstmals Angst vor einem Mahlstrom am Rande der Welt – und haben trotzdem Amerika entdeckt. Später folgte ihnen Kolumbus nach, und viele seiner Zeitgenossen erwarteten, er würde von der Erdscheibe stürzen. In den vergangenen Jahren mehren sich nun die wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen über einen direkten Einfluss der Sonne auf unser Klima (aktuelle Beispiele hier und hier). Es wäre also eigentlich höchste Zeit, dass das IPCC auch solche mainstream-kritischen wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten in seine Berichte aufnimmt und seinen CO2-Klimaalarmismus deutlich herunterfährt.

Javier, Watts Up With That, WUWT: Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.

Charles Battig, MD, electrical engineer, member: CO2 Coalition, The Heartland Institute, TRCS: This presentation shows that carbon dioxide is an essential molecule for life on Earth and not a pollutant like environmental extremists and their politicians claim. People in the free world must come to their senses regarding the importance of fossil fuels for freedom, strong economies, peace, prosperity, healthy environment, preservation of wildlife habitat and biodiversity. An easy to understand document like this is essential for the public. The nuclear power industry should stop making claims that nuclear power can save the world and polar bears from catastrophic man-made global warming. Nuclear power is not able to control Earth's climate. This presentation and many like it clearly explain what controls climate change. Nuclear power is essential to providing strong economies around the world for thousands of years and helping poorer, less prosperous people. It should rely on that strength to get new nuclear power plants going worldwide.

Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut: For the last half-million years, there have been 100,000-year glacial periods interrupted by brief (10,000-15,000-year) interglacial such as the one we’re in now. In all cases, the temperature changes have preceded CO2 changes, and CO2 has never been able to ward off descent into glacial cycles.

Don Bogard, radio-geochemistry, nuclear geochemistry, planetary science: This article is another scientist's opinion on use of fossil fuels and what will be required for a transition when fossil fuels eventually run out or if governments decide to force abandonment of these energy resources that have created the modern world. He makes a very important conclusion: "Any significant change to the US power infrastructure MUST be a measured and long-term endeavor." There are several reasons for the long transition time: a) We don't have the technical ability to build nuclear plants that fast. b) We must establish used nuclear fuel reprocessing, mainly to save the unused 99% of nuclear energy from the ore. Don't put it back in the ground "forever." c) We must establish standard ways of storing the remaining radioactive waste. d) Nuclear power should only be used in countries with stable governments, strong economies, good education systems, well developed industries to perform some of the maintenance operations. e) We must develop additional nuclear power technologies besides the very large Light Water Reactors of the past. Don Bogard understands these needs. Too many outside the nuclear power profession wrongfully claim that the whole world can be owning and operating nuclear plants in fifty or one hundred years. In reality, it will be several centuries, maybe longer. We must have wise energy planning for the whole world NOW. That must include fossil fuels for generating electricity, not abandoning them for wind and solar.

Ian Plimer, geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne: Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Patrick Moore has a different opinion.

Climate alarm is nonsense. The idea that rising CO2 will cause dangerous change is nonsense. Actually, it will have no [detrimental] effect on the climate but a wonderful effect on plant life. But the recent rise in CO2 (since about 1850) is because of man burning fossil fuels.

John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: China, France, Russia, South Korea are countries with a bright future for nuclear power, even oil exporting countries have plans for nuclear power. The United States has minimal plans beyond the first generation of commercial power plants. This is disgraceful. The anti-nuclear organizations, spokespersons, and the public that agree with them can cheer for the moment. Modern societies need fossil fuels and nuclear power to prosper for the long term future. Things have to change and will.

President Obama believes that no challenge poses a greater threat to our children, our planet, and future generations than climate change .. .. .. That’s why under President Obama’s leadership, the United States has done more to combat climate change than ever before. Note: The photo below shows a frozen ocean off of Woods Hole Research Center, Massachusetts - in February / March, 2015. Obama's own supporters were surprised to see this rare event of a frozen ocean at Woods Hole. Their website says: "I'm with science. Climate Change is no Hoax." Shouldn't these scientists and the White House check the weather by looking out the window? Is carbon dioxide one of the essential molecules of life? Is it a pollutant at anywhere near today's concentrations?

Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said: “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.” Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. (Note, John Shanahan: The man-made global warming alarmists could also be just plain wrong that fossil fuels are a major source of global warming. See Ed Berry's articles and over 450 other articles on this website challenging the alarmists. Look under the main tab, ENVIRONMENT.)

Steve Goreham, Executive Director, Climate Science Coalition of America: It appears that the climate models have relied on a “flea wagging the dog” assumption. Forces driving Earth’s water cycle, which includes weather and the oceans, are many orders of magnitude more powerful than the ebb and flow of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The idea that the atmospheric level of CO{-2}, a trace gas, is controlling weather and the water cycle is improbable. The idea that mankind’s relatively tiny CO{-2} emissions impact the water cycle is preposterous.

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.

CO2 Coalition, www.co2coalition.org: Mark Twain said, "It is not so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. Rather, the mischief is caused by things that we do know that ain’t so.” We “know” that carbon dioxide is “bad for the environment.” (In fact, it is a prerequisite for life.) We “know” that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching historically dangerous levels. (In fact, we have, these past centuries, been living through a CO2 famine. We “know” that on the subject of climate change, the “science is settled”.

Ed Berry, physicist and climate scientist: Simple physics explains why man-made carbon dioxide does not cause catastrophic global warming. Analysis of the chemistry of the carbon dioxide cycle is more complex. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change computer models are black boxes. The public doesn't know what's in them and their fudge factors can get any answer they want. The computer models have never explained climate change in the past. Dr. Berry's physics model explains the process of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can accept this explanation or debate it until the next ice age. We can continue to use fossil fuels or forgo them, transfer wealth by mandate and abandon modern living standards. We can believe those who claim that nuclear can control climate change or understand that nuclear can help us when climate changes. Simple.

Daniel Aegerter, Swiss investment manager, philanthropist interested in the best realistic development of energy resources for the whole world: Many people have flawed concepts of how the world should develop energy programs in the future. Some think that the world faces climate catastrophes from use of fossil fuels. Others don't. Some want drastic changes for fossil fuels, wind, solar and nuclear in the next few decades. Daniel Aegerter is concerned about serious man-made global warming. But, compared to many others, he may have come up with the best and most practical schedule for developing energy resources. He recognizes that countries with weak or very bad governments, weak economies, poor education systems, poor industry need fossil fuels to improve, not nuclear. He encourages the stronger, more advanced countries to switch to nuclear as much as possible, as soon as possible. That is the recommendation of allaboutenergy.net also.

Ed Berry, Atmospheric Physicist presents arguments why CO2 from fossil fuels is not causing serious global warming.

Craig Idso, Robert Carter, and Fred Singer, contributors to Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change explain why scientists disagree about man-made global warming. There is no consensus. Climate scientists can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias. Eric Jelinski - Canada: The science is not complete, but some of the pertinent information is that global warming has stopped even though CO2 emissions have increased....clearly a hoax to collect taxes to fight climate change or give taxpayers money to other countries to fight climate change, and then tax Canadian people to pay for that via a carbon tax.